[geocentrism] Re: An off subject subject.
- From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:00:45 +1000
Philip,
Peter Dimond obviously believes that all scripture is inspired. Hence, his
position can be seen to fall apart immediately from the following:
What is not inspired, I can't call Scripture. According to my belief, not all
inspired writings is in canonised scripture. The process was not closed. But
all of Scripture is cannonised as inspired..
Of course I am referring to the original writing.. Copies or interpretations
or translations are not inspired, but can only be confirmed as accurate within
fallible constraints. Jeromes Latin Vulgate was so accorded as being accurate
in translation, not inspired, by the official church process. But accuracy is
dependent upon the scholarly application of Jeromes Latin dictionary, not
necessarily our modern latin dictionary.. Hence all of the historical English
or any vernacular translations, are bound to present problems for our
interpretation.
Take the English phrase "delivered into their hands" Used by modernists to
twist the Bible into being no more than symbolic or poetic moral instruction.
If this is a 19th century English usage, then that is what the translators
wrote for that time. But the original Greek or Hebrew may have said quite
accurately, something like "delivered them to their control or power." Even the
word "delivered" may be inappropriate. Who of us can know?
Thus our debates over literal meanings of Gods word are rather meaningless
unless we had the mind and scholarship of the original writers languages, or at
the very least the interpretations of those people who were very much closer
and contemporary of the writers. Even then, consensus seems to be impossible,
as evidenced.
But thank you for that point re the moon. I wanted it confirmed before I got
back to him.. However Peter seems to have ignored a previous post wherein I
pointed to an error of logic, in that I reminded him of our fallibility.
All of the above of course confirms our need "as little children" the authority
of men chosen by God to keep us on track as one in faith, letting us argue all
day about whether Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, but insisting we must
accept the doctrine on the Trinity. Philip.
28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot. 30
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said:
Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how
can I, unless some man shew me?
This seems to contradict the opinion of many that the Holy Ghost is gauranteed
or available to all in reading scripture.
2 Peter 3-15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our
most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are
certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You
therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led
aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
What is the error of the unwise.. ? Note it is a singular word, not "errors"
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: An off subject subject.
Philip,
Peter Dimond obviously believes that all scripture is inspired. Hence, his
position can be seen to fall apart immediately from the following:
Josue 10:12-13 – "Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered
the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them:
Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of
Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged
themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space
of one day."
Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing
according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not
go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle
and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not "seek to
penetrate the secrets of nature"; that is to say, the sacred books didn’t seek
or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because
the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did.
Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia.
Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these
passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical
truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for
what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena
(as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the
creation of these external phenomena.
As I have tried to show here (and in Guided Tours) many times, this passage
can only be accounted for in a geostationary universe. Stopping the World just
does not account for this claimed event, because the Moon would continue to
move in this scenario. It would not stay still. (In fact it would go faster -
and in the opposite direction - something that would perhaps have been even
more noteworthy!!).
Neville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.16/914 - Release Date: 23/07/2007
7:45 PM
Other related posts:
