Regardless of what people inferred, where does the bible actually say the earth is the center of the universe?

I’ve seen some new Christian apologists trying to claim the bible has no such claims, but and simple search is all you need to find the passages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Biblical_references

Modern geocentrists point to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis. One is Ecclesiastes 1:5:
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Another is in Joshua 10, 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:[6]
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
In Psalm 104, 5 (according to King James Version numbering) this verse is found:
[God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
A suggestion that the Earth is stationary is Isaiah 66:1:
Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.
And another in Chronicles 16:30
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
However, many modern biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author.[7] Some claim that the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah should only be considered to be a metaphorical description of God’s power, rather than an indication that God literally rests his feet on the Earth. It is argued that the context of the passages provides no reason to believe that the author intended them to be dogmatic statements regarding the location of the Earth in the universe, that any such implications are therefore indirect rather than reflecting the intended purpose of the author, and that drawing indirect implications from the text is improper, because it is often due more to the bias of the interpreter than the meaning of the text.
Geocentrists argue that reasoning that “explains away” such verses with arguments such as “the Bible is not a science book” or the Bible is “contextual” leads to the appearance of the scriptures containing lies or inaccuracies. They see this sort of reasoning as very dangerous, and associate it with the perceived recent rapid disintegration of Christianity and society.

There are still people who support the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe or the Earth is flat and do so from a biblical POV. There are other passages that support the biblical claim. The one listed were just one sample.

They took the word of the bible to be true and literal and that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Regardless of what people inferred, where does the bible actually say the earth is the center of the universe?

But Stark makes a compelling claim that Greek religion and philosophy are what caused Islam to become stagnated. Because Europe was cut off from it, western science was able to evolve out of the logical thought used to study God through the Bible.

Please expand on this. This makes no sense to me considering that Greek and Roman philosophers were doing quite well without the presence of the Christian religion.

Bruno was burned at the stake for going against Aristotle not against Christ. Of course his execution was an abomination, was they were not acting as they had been taught to from the Bible.

No offence, but this is a cop-out. They took the word of the bible to be true and literal and that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Bruno was not burned alive because he disagreed with Aristotle alone. Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s claims were accepted as fact and backed by the church simply because it reflected the bible’s claim of a geocentric universe.

I also read “The Fall of Rome” by Ward-Perkins, and while he makes some important observations, he loses the debate to the broader range of evidence of Stark. Of course the economy suffers under war and economic chaos, but the fall of Rome opened the door to the slow formation of capitalism.

While capitalism is considered to have heen “institutionalized” in Europe in the late 16th century, it would not be possible to claim that capitalism did not originate or was not practiced in ancient times. Granted, without the region or state institutionalizing the idea, you could find your product summarily seized, but the practices of and principles of capitalism were in use long before the 16th century.

I am wondering what contradictions you cite turned you away?

I really don’t want to turn this into a scripture discussion. If you want a quick run down, you can start here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with many of these arguments as I was once there myself.

I have studied history and have seen the history of mankind with and without religions. I prefer without. Pagan empires such as Rome and Greece had a healthier outlook towards religions that we do today.

But Stark makes a compelling claim that Greek religion and philosophy are what caused Islam to become stagnated. Because Europe was cut off from it, western science was able to evolve out of the logical thought used to study God through the Bible.

Bruno was burned at the stake for going against Aristotle not against Christ. Of course his execution was an abomination, was they were not acting as they had been taught to from the Bible.

It is odd how when something evil is done in the name of god, those who inflict such evil are labeled as corrupt or not “true” theist yet when anything secular is in the spotlight for equally evil actions, the blanket castigation of atheism begins.

I knew that was coming. I believe in Christ, not in Christians. No matter what Christians may do, I can still follow Christ through scripture and whatever few true Christians I can find.

He can also claim the dark ages never happened, but he would be also in error.

I also read “The Fall of Rome” by Ward-Perkins, and while he makes some important observations, he loses the debate to the broader range of evidence of Stark. Of course the economy suffers under war and economic chaos, but the fall of Rome opened the door to the slow formation of capitalism.

it is religion that gets it done, athiests (sorry to insult) haven’t

Believe it or not religion doesn’t play a major role in societal and technological advances. Sure, many advances come from religions people simply because there are more of them, but it does not mean that they made their advances because of their religion. Arguing otherwise would be a fallacy.

But in comparison to Christians, they have done very little, not being “self-righteousness”, show me where I am wrong. Point to the hospitals that athiests have built

right2bright on February 13, 2007 at 8:37 PM

You are being self-righteous because this has nothing to do with the argument about religion vs. atheism; it has to do with you placing yourself and your religion on a pedestal so you can look down at atheists (and everyone else) saying “I’m better than you.” You’re arguing in fallacy.

The debate isn’t about how many hospitals your religion has built or how many bake sales you’ve been to or which is “better”. The debate is about a belief in a deity (of any kind, not just the Christian one) vs. the belief that a deity doesn’t exist and which one is, at least, more logical.

I really don’t want to turn this into a scripture discussion. If you want a quick run down, you can start here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I saw part of this. One of the guests tried to make the point that while people of faith routinely proselytize, when atheists do the same thing, they are derided.

honora on February 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM

Honora, this post is not directed at you, I am merely using your quote as a reference because I did not see the program or hear the atheist’s complaint that they are derided.

In my lifetime I have never seen an atheist derided for expressing their non-belief. As a Christian I’ve been told I was silly to believe the Bible, so I suppose I have been derided for expressing my beliefs. So if some atheist are derided for expressing their non-belief, that’s the price we pay for living in a free speech society and their grievance is not exclusive. Learn to love it, it’s called freedom. None of us should expect to express unpopular opinions without receiving rebuttal.

While the left constantly derides Christianity as intolerant, the opposite is true, Christianity is a wellspring of tolerance. American was indeed founded as a Christian nation and it still is a Christian nation. Every theism in the world can be found here and we all reside together in relative harmony. You can be an atheist, or any religion for that matter and live well in America. You don’t need to be concerned about a loud knock in the middle of the night and being imprisoned or killed for your particular belief.

That is not true where atheist are the majority and atheism has become the state’s religion. Where the state has become God, there is no room for competition. China is one example of this today, but there are many. And looking to history, we find this:

LIFE IN THE THIRD REICH: 1933-1937

Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a few thousand pastors and priests or over the quarreling of the various Protestant sects. And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ”National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”

What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the ”National Reich Church” drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that of “the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National Socialist Party.” A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:

1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.

5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably. . . the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year.

7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

13. The National church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany . . .

14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.

19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Chapter 8, pages 212–213

– by William L. Shirer

I became and atheist once I read the bible. I like many of my generation were raised as Christians. For me, it was my questioning (and the authoritative rebuttal of being a sinner for asking them) that started it all.

My experience is exactly the opposite. I was raised as a “Christian” but consciously rejected Christ to live on my own terms. I rejected the bible and its teachings because they did not suite the lifestyle I wanted. I tried to disprove the bible to easy my conscience and ended up giving my life to Jesus instead.

What the bible says is contradictory and a work of man.
Gene Splicer on February 13, 2007 at 8:36 PM

It’s amazing that we looked at the same book and came to opposite conclusions.

In my case, some of the contradictions I tried to use to debunk the Bible stemmed from taking things out of context. This was especially true when comparing the God of the old testament and the God of the new without understanding that each was a different side of the same coin so to speak.

I am wondering what contradictions you cite turned you away?

Any of the books by Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel will also provide a good introduction to Christian Apologetics. C.S. Lewis is also strong. Both Strobel and Lewis are reformed atheists who accepted Christ as their savior.

Mallard T. Drake on February 13, 2007 at 8:39 PM

They have some useful evidentiary arguments, but as a whole, they try to appeal to the logic of the unbeliever to see the light of Christianity. Also, they make their outside evidences the authority that the Bible as true, rather than use the Bible as the sole authority. It’s funny, McDowell will quote Van Til yet never use his apologetic method. See my post above.

Faith1 on February 13, 2007 at 7:39 PM

My my aren’t we testy. If you don’t need a religion to do so, then why aren’t they done? You missed my point, it is religion that gets it done, athiests (sorry to insult) haven’t. Step it up. “Nose so high”, c’mon I was talking in general, look at the posts, never has a athiest blogged and said they have not done anything to help humanity. But in comparison to Christians, they have done very little, not being “self-righteousness”, show me where I am wrong. Point to the hospitals that athiests have built. As Ali once said “it ain’t braggin if you can do it”. Funny when I point out good things done you name call. And don’t put words in my mouth, I never said monopoly…I said point me to where the athiests have built schools, hospitals, relief programs, etc. Show them to me and humble me. Other words…put up or shut up. That is like saying you can outplay Kobe Bryant, ok, show me. . This isn’t a high horse, it is a challenge. You debate and then when faced with facts you name call. Just show me where I am wrong and knock me off my “high horse”. Here is the challenge: Show me the monuments of good that athiests have built and maintain, and compare that to what the Christians have builts and maintained. Let me start. Most of the higher education universities, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, Loyola, etc. Hospitals, oh man, too many but several in every major city, St. Jude, Hoag,

I think the more you study history the less likely you will be to believe that.

I have studied history and have seen the history of mankind with and without religions. I prefer without. Pagan empires such as Rome and Greece had a healthier outlook towards religions that we do today.

The fact that wrong-headed people have entered the Church doesn’t mean that what the Bible says is wrong.

It is odd how when something evil is done in the name of god, those who inflict such evil are labeled as corrupt or not “true” theist yet when anything secular is in the spotlight for equally evil actions, the blanket castigation of atheism begins.

What the bible says is contradictory and a work of man. I place much more worth in the goals set by most who generically label themselves as a Christian yet do so without the adherence to the bible. These motivations and ideals seem much more noble to me.

I recommend the book “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark for an discription of how non-Christian beliefs throughout history have held back human progress.

The premise and claims of this book is directly contradicted by the reality of the fate of Bruno and others who dare to use reason and empirical evidence to show that what is claimed in the bible and by the church was false. He can also claim the dark ages never happened, but he would be also in error.

I wish every Christian who comments on the web would read and heed Francis Schaeffer’s wonderful short book (which was originally a chapter in a longer book), The Mark of the Christian:

Looks like we’ve got another orthodox Presbyterian here. I’d like to add “Every Thought Captive” to that list.

am glad that many of the things that keep you alive and have schooled so many are gifts from the Christian Church. Given for all to reap and benefit.

You missed my point. I didn’t claim religious people don’t do good things. My point was that you don’t need a church or religion to do so. It isn’t the sole privy of any religious sect to determine right from wrong or good from bad. Those are constructs of ma–no deity need be involved.

Also, concepts as murder being wrong etc are not creations of the Christian Church. Also, don’t assume I am not familiar with churchs or religions. I’m not out to convince anyone their beliefs are wrong. They are just your beliefs.

My point was one can be an atheist and still do good in the world. “Being religious” and “doing good” aren’t always the same and being non-religious and “doing good” aren’t mutually exclusive.

As to the comment:

I have never met one athiest who claims not to be a great humanantarian, each one greater than the other.

Thanks for holding your nose so high you didn’t read my words. I said the exact opposite of what you claim I meant. I’ve done some good things, done some bad things. Neither was from any particularly religious connotation.

Athiests consume what the religious build and create, and return very little.

Oh please, that is so over the top in self-righteousness as to be beyond hyperbole. It is exactly that “only the religious do good things” that I was showing is simply put–crap. Yes, there are people in churches who do good things. I never said otherwise. I maintained that they weren’t holding a monopoly on doing good things.

I would offer that the reason you know that these acts are wrong is precisely because of religious and moral values that have been established in our culture for centuries. Your life has been affected for the good by religion and moral goods much more than you realize.

Or perhaps the religious culture adopted common moral structures already in place and created by man. You really want to maintain that wrongful killing or abusing children has only been a “bad thing” for the last few centuries?

I am just pointing out to you that it is slightly offensive to see Christian written as “xtian.” I don’t know a single Christian who uses the word “xmas.” It is definately a secular reference.

It isn’t a secular reference at all. Chi-Rhos are found all over Christian artwork, writings, buildings (churches, that is). It’s not meant to be a Latin X (with its “variable goes here” algebraic connotations), it’s meant to be a Greek Chi, which has long stood as a symbol for Christ.

It’s not an insult any more than “WWJD” is an insult to Jesus’ name.

But the common distrust of atheists isn’t helped by sarcasm.

C’mon, we’re the only people that don’t get to use it? UNFAIR.

I would think that the great thing about being an atheist on your death bed is that you’re not worried about how well you did.

Mankind is fully capable of creating laws and having moral without any sort of deity.

I think the more you study history the less likely you will be to believe that.

After the “lift” of Christ, people who were arguable early scientist were persecuted and even executed for disclosing fact of our existence that proved claims of the xian bible in error.

The fact that wrong-headed people have entered the Church doesn’t mean that what the Bible says is wrong.

I recommend the book “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark for an discription of how non-Christian beliefs throughout history have held back human progress.

Something I made based upon the fear of militants taking the “separation of church and state” to an extreme.

http://www.theshallowgenepool.com/shows/2184%20headlines%20arlington%20virginia.mp3

than calling you by the initials M. T. does. Well, maybe that’s a bad example….

That’s actually pretty good. The use of ellipses tells me you are making a jest. It is hard to be satrical in print, without it being misinterpreted unless you are very broad or using a smiley or some other device.

You mean like assuming that someone is intentional trying to insult you from reading one word in one post but overlooking all the other posts? I noticed no comment about my “proper” use of the term.

You’re right, I didn’t notice your proper use of the term, Christian. If you did, then good for you. You get credit.
;-)

And if you want to entertain a rational debate, please do not post reactionary comments over a common abbreviation (as in xmas) and assume lack of respect. I guess you missed the instances where I did spell the word out.

Relax, I’m not going to call for riots because you won’t refer to Christianity by name. I am just pointing out to you that it is slightly offensive to see Christian written as “xtian.” I don’t know a single Christian who uses the word “xmas.” It is definately a secular reference. Since every single ethnic group and religion gets to define how they are referred to, I am pointing out to you, and others, that “xtians” is disrespetful. You can do with that information what you’d like.

That’s like getting into a debate with someone named Richard and feigning innocence when you get called on emphatically referring to him as Dick for the second half of the debate.
At least if you’re going to poke at someone, be adult enough to own up to it.

You mean like assuming that someone is intentional trying to insult you from reading one word in one post but overlooking all the other posts? I noticed no comment about my “proper” use of the term.

Yes it was a poke and yes the second comment was intentional, but it was also to be in jest.