No no we cant have this !

[SteamWake]

Mothers children court ordered into public schools after 4 years of home schooling. The problem? The teaching has a religious slant to it.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/

[Tribesman]

Home Skoolin based on the bible , yeah tell yur kids that the sun revolves around the earth, but don't be surprised if the schools say your science is crap and doesn't really count as science and as such doesn't meet the curriculum standards for home schooling

[CaptainHaplo]

I went to a private school for many years. I also think home schooling is a good idea in certain situations.

HOWEVER! Everyone is jumping to conclusions here. This is an issue being closely followed by responsible media, as well as folks like wral - and the facts are honestly unknown.

What we do know is the judge did say the children need to go to public school. We DO NOT KNOW WHY! All we have is the say so of the woman who just lost on this issue. The mother just lost this battle - so of course she is going to spin it any way she can. The reporter helps because he/she see a story that can be made sensational and controversial.

Having been through a VERY messy divorce and 5 years of visitation and custody battles, I know how easy it would be to get the public filing and pull some quote out of it to make it support this story. I can also see where the judge would order public school based purely on what little I know of this.

In the state of North Carolina, judges almost always award joint custody, unless there is a blasted good reason not to. Thus each parent has equal say in things like how their child is educated, For this to be an issue it looks as if the mother has primary care of the children. So how is the father going to have equal say if she home schools the kids? He wouldn't. He would have zero input that would be considered - because the mom in her home will do whatever she wants, just like he will in his home. So - there is no way to accomplish the desired goal, which is having both parents involved in the education of their children. Unless the children go to public school. If they do, then both parents suddenly have equal access to the teacher and records.

Being familiar with how the courts work here - I strongly suspect this has nothing at all to do with religion, and everything about involving both parents in this important part of their children's lives.

I could be entirely wrong - but before we go off the deep end, lets wait and see what the judge actually says in his writen ruling. While its easy to get stirred up by the "story" - it is very possible that is all it is - a story - sensationalized and spun by a reporter looking for a headline - and a disgruntled mother who didnt get her way.

And Tribesman - once again you show your ..... blissfulness. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the sun revolves around the earth. But of course - you ignoring fact (or making up fake ones) shouldn't suprise anyone...

[Digital_Trucker]

Good points, Hap. I wonder, too, if the mother will not be able to stay at home now that they are divorced. It would be extremely difficult to home school the children while working a full time job.

But, as you say, we should wait until we know the "rest of the story" before we jump off the deep end.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I do know a bit about the way they do Child Support here. It is horribly unfair. I got custody of my son nearly 2 years ago, and his mother has been "in school" for the last 5 - online only. During the 3 years she had custody, and when I recieved custody - she continued to claim her schooling made it impossible for her to work. Since I worked, and she didn't, the CS was calculated for me to have full "responsibility" share wise regarding the moneys needed to keep him sheltered, fed etc. Thus my CS was initially computed to be around 50% of my income. Needless to say that was... exorbitant in the extreme. It finally was set at the highest % allowed by law.

Now that I have custody, because I have remained employed and stable, while she has continued to pursue her "education", her total child support due is the state minimum - $50 a month. To date, I haven't recieved a dime. The amount was also set due to the fact she has other minor children that she is responsible for.

So she sits at home, collects welfare and food stamps from the state for herself and her other kids, sends her now husband out to work when he can find it (at least he tries and is willing), and whines about how life is unfair. 5 years later she is supposed to finally get her 2 year degree, but of course she plans on "continuing her education" instead of actually going out and becoming productive. Not to mention she gets to apply for all kinds of federal and state "grants" for her "education".

***Yes I know - I really made horrible choices when I was much younger....***

Because this woman has 3 children, and if she did not work during the marriage, if the guy has a decent job its very likely his CS amount will be rather high. She can claim no skills, and thus have her responsibility totally negated. She may have to get a job, depending on that amount. It is one of the true inequities of the system in place here, how they figure the numbers.

[Tribesman]

And Tribesman - once again you show your ..... blissfulness. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the sun revolves around the earth. But of course - you ignoring fact (or making up fake ones) shouldn't suprise anyone...
Really ?
If that were true then the church would have severe trouble finding scripture to back up the geocentrist view then.
So in famous heresy cases concerning heliocentric views was the passages of scripture the church used from the bible or some other book?
If someone was found to be guilty of saying things that were contrary to Holy Scripture would that Holy Scripture be the bible or some other book ?

You really make it too easy to rip apart your posts Haplo .

[Frame57]

You are right. We do not the details about it. The Judaic culture never used the scriptures to replace conventional education. You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. This notion and many other erroneous ones arose in the dark ages along with a myriad of other superstitions and poor theological references. In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it. Yet in Isaiah 40:22 and in Job 26:7 We see the earth as being a circle (Chugh) in hebrew which means "sphere". And Job states it is suspended by nothing. Pretty accurate I would say. If I were to have home schooled kids I would have to make clear distinctions between what is faith based and what is not. Kids obviously are not going to learn Algebra from the bible. But they certainly can learn about morals in society that are perfectly applicable.

[Skybird]

However, not going deep into the intricacies of divorces, I just point out that it is a valid point that homescholling is only acceptable if it gives children the same level of practical competence regarding basic skills (math, reading, writing) and scientific education like the regular school curriculum. Where there is a risk of sectarianism and religious dogma putting the kids' future at risk by replacing the regular curriculum with ideologc fantasizing and sectarian brainwashing, it is unacceptable and the state as I understand him has the obligation the protect the children from their irresponsible parents, like the state also would move the children out of a family where sexual abuse is a risk or drug threatens their immediate basic wellbeing and threatens their chances for their life's future as well.

I am not against homeschooling in principal, but against the abuse of it. I also want the obligation that homeschooled children must face the same exams and qualifications (supervisied by state's authority) like children in ordinary schools. Only on this basis, any form of diplomas, notes etc make sense. Else problem in the future are preprogrammed.

Children are the weakest, the most vulnerable, the most dependant factor in the social formula. Their interest and future perspective must be understood to be the top priority in any cases of disputes, whether it be about homeschooling or divorce. Even ideologic drives of parents have to step back here. Children's wellbeing rules first (at least that's how it should be in court decisions - if it really is always like this, is something different).

[Sailor Steve]

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.
Actually that's not true either. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the Earth in the second century B.C., and Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, had done further calculations not much after that. Columbus' chief opponent didn't believe the Earth was flat, but that it was much larger than Columbus himself claimed. It turned out that he was right and old Cristoforo Columbo was wrong.

The belief that they thought the Earth was flat is an invention of Washington Irving.

[Platapus]

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

[August]

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

I think it's a mistake to consider school as the only environment a person can learn those social lessons. I did far more socializing with the neighborhood kids in the woods and fields around my house and though after school social activities with the Boy Scouts, YMCA, Little League, etc, than i ever did sitting in a classroom quietly listening to a teachers lecture.

[Tribesman]

You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth.
Wow another one .
So towards the end of the last century the Pope didn't apologise about the earlier insistance on geocentric views based on the bible then .
When he said the problem was the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture he meant Holy Scripture that isn't the bible:rotfl:

[Skybird]

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

:yep: :up:

My 5th school class I spent in Lübeck at a "Gymnasium" (we have a highschool-system in germany having three different kinds of highschools: Haupt-, Real- and Gymnasialschule) that back then, late 70s, still was an exclusive boy-school. even that already felt different than the mixed Gymnasium I went to after we had moved to Berlin. And I was definitely happier at the latter. The latter school is the reaosn why I look back at my schooltime with a friendly heart and good memories.

It's simply was two very different things.

[CaptainHaplo]

You really make it too easy to rip apart your posts Haplo .

Aww poor tribesman - got your knickers in a wad because of me? How....... special. I would be flattered, but that would require I care.:har: You might ought to consider that to successfully attack something, the attack must have teeth...

So far your attempts to debate have been filled with illogical insinuations, baseless tripe, ignorance of fact and absurd attempts at "reasoning".

Lets take this arguement. Your first come up and say that teaching based on the bible means teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. An assumption that is factually incorrect. Of course - had you been intellectually honest and done a bit of research, you would have known that. However, getting your facts straight hasn't exactly proven to be a strong point for ya. When your challenged on it - you start talking about what some dead guy who got elected to wear a pointy white hat had to say. Instead of either rising to the challenge - or saying "hmm ok yea that may have been a bad example of the point I was trying to convey" - your thought process starts wandering away, trying to find some other source - in this case another imperfect human, to somehow corroborate your faulty and uneducated perspective.

You go right ahead and "tear up" my posts there tribesman. If people are fooled by your ludicriosity, thats their problem. I point these weaknesses of yours out not to belittle you, but in the hope that one day you might actually look at some of your "logic leaps" and realize that its not about what you THINK is fact, its about what IS fact. Once you can base your arguments off of those - I might just take you a bit more seriously.

In the meantime - you might wanna do something about that wedgie you seem to have. :rotfl:

[Tribesman]

So dumb its almost unbelievable .
Its so simple Haplo , was the scripture used to "prove" galileo wrong the bible or some other scripture ?
If the passages used to "prove" the earth is stationary and the other objects move were not taken from the bible where were they taken from ?

You go right ahead and "tear up" my posts there tribesman.
I notice you still havn't been able to produce the non-existant agreement between Israel and Hamas that you claimed existed . :rotfl:

[CaptainHaplo]

Not my fault you can't understand the term "brokered" - enjoy your ... bliss and your wedgie.

[Tribesman]

Not my fault you can't understand the term "brokered"
It is you who doesn't understand the term .
If a real estate agent attempts to broker a deal between a buyer and a seller he hasn't brokered anything unless the sale goes through , however if he succeeds in brokering the deal there will be a resulting document signed by both parties stating that they are in agreement .

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok tribesman - you seem to be stuck on this - so I will put this to you quite simply. Hopefully you will comprehend it (though I don't hold out much hope). I also hope it will help you stop living in the past since you can't seem to let go of it....

Just like actually reading the Bible would have corrected your misconception of the sun and earth and what revolves around what according to scripture, reading the articles I linked would have made it clear that there was an agreement. Allow me to quote the Huffington Post.

"A little more than six months ago, Egypt brokered a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. The truce ended on December 19, and it was Hamas, not Israel, that refused to extend it (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians). In fact, The current attacks began before the cease-fire agreement expired. In the last six weeks, Hamas has fired more than 400 missiles into Israel, including 40 Qassam rockets and mortars since December 19."

Now - note it didn't say that Egypt TRIED to broker a cease fire. It said it DID broker one. Thus, per that article, an agreement EXISTED. Otherwise the agreement that couldnt exist - couldn't expire could it? What you want to see is some long drawn out "treaty" documentation signed by both parties. Excuse me, but it would help if you would extract your cranium from your rectum for a moment and realize the following:

#1 Israel isn't going to negotiate with terrorists directly, so everyone sitting down and having a nice chat, tea and crumpets to figure out the wording of an agreement just ain't going to happen. Nor did it.

#2 Hamas is not a government, thus they have no recognized diplomat authorized to sign any such agreement if it existed. They are a terrorist organization, and thus have no interest in signing a document that - as the above noted - they had no interest in complying with.

#3 Egypt acted as a go between and got both sides to agree to stop shooting and killing each other. Egypt stated clearly that both sides agreed to the ceasefire, and neither side disputed it. In fact, again, had you read the links I posted, a leader of Hamas first "embraced" the ceasefire. A week later he was inciting its violation. This further proved the point I was making - you can't trust terrorists to abide by any agreement.

Its unfortunate that you CHOOSE to remain ignorant when your provided with the facts. This is what makes your arguments laughable, and your diatribes a source of questionable worth, at best. Note the difference tribesman - you jabber on with this view or that, never actually providing any form of verification on your claims. I, and others, discuss and provide sources that support our respective views. We give specific points, and give others the ability to ascertain the veracity of those points. You throw snide remarks, inuendo and simply "expect" that everyone will see it your way. Sorry, but that isn't how discourse or debate work.

I will point out - Zachstar and I disagree on the labor bill before congress. However, we have addressed specific points and are debating the merits of each. He and I can agree to disagree, but we are at least discussing it. Such a discourse with you is a waste of time, because you have no willingness to comprehend that you may have a fact wrong, or a preconception incorrect. Your arguement on the ceasefire showed you can't accept facts that dispute your opinion, and your earth and sun argument demonstrated that reality takes a back seat to your preconcieved views.

In finality, you just feel free to continue to try and "rip apart" my posts. At least now I know what gave you the wedgie - must be from pushing your head into its normal orifice that did it. :salute:

[Stealth Hunter]

You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. This notion and many other erroneous ones arose in the dark ages along with a myriad of other superstitions and poor theological references.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

If your planet is immovable, then the sun must be the thing moving here, according to scripture that is.

The ironic thing is that Copernicus, who provided evidence of a geocentric system, was a devout Christian in a time when people who uttered such things were branded as blasphemers, traitors, and heretics by the Church.

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.

Well actually, they didn't believe you would "fall off the edge". They believed that Earth had a solid skydome which protected us from the things outside of it. They did believe that there were great monsters in the oceans, though (somewhat true, if you consider all the gigantic things there are in the waters).

Here's a woodcut from the Middle Ages that basically displays what they thought perfectly:

http://www.godandscience.org/images/dome.gif

Yet in Isaiah 40:22 and in Job 26:7 We see the earth as being a circle (Chugh) in hebrew which means "sphere".

Here's what we know about this part: the Jews adopted most of the old Babylonian theological beliefs on Earth and science. The Babylonians believed that Earth was a flat discus plane-like object that existed with a dome covering it (not referred to as a skydome, however). The Hebrew word "chugh" can mean both "circle" and "sphere", so while it could mean "sphere", they believed what the Babylonians did, which was quite the contrary (if anything, it would be a half sphere since you've got the flat ground and the solid dome). If the author wanted to say Earth is a sphere, why not use the word "dur"? It means "ball" in Hebrew, and is a hell of a lot closer (by definition) than "chugh".

Please note the "skydome" was referred to as "The Firmament" by the Babylonians and Jews, and this is where they believed that their gods dwelled.

And Job states it is suspended by nothing.

I don't know about that (do you have a specific verse?), but I do know that the Babylonians and old Jews also believed that Earth stood on a fixed set of pillars.

Pretty accurate I would say.

As far as the spherical Earth is concerned, no, it's not accurate. The Job verse I won't fully comment on since I don't know precisely what he said (but as I did point out, the old Jews adopted the Babylonian beliefs, which said that Earth was fixed on a set of pillars).

If I were to have home schooled kids I would have to make clear distinctions between what is faith based and what is not.

Agreed.

Kids obviously are not going to learn Algebra from the bible.

That's for true.

But they certainly can learn about morals in society that are perfectly applicable.

I would have to dispute that. The Bible has got some moral and good teachings, but it's got a lot of immoral things, too, such as saying it's alright to own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46; NLT), it's acceptable to stone rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:-24), and it's also acceptable to beat children who are viewed as fools (Proverbs 22:15). It's also got a lot of brutal deaths and violence in it.

Definitely a no-no for young kids, but I would say a 14 or 15-year-old home-schooled kid could handle it.

[Tribesman]

Thus, per that article, an agreement EXISTED.
:har: Bloody hell , you base your whole position on a newspaper article .
#1 Israel isn't going to negotiate with terrorists directly, so everyone sitting down and having a nice chat, tea and crumpets to figure out the wording of an agreement just ain't going to happen. Nor did it.

Errrr... thats why they use intermediaries , you know other people to try and broker deal between themselves and other parties .
#2 Hamas is not a government, thus they have no recognized diplomat authorized to sign any such agreement if it existed. They are a terrorist organization, and thus have no interest in signing a document that - as the above noted - they had no interest in complying with.

Hamas is the elected government , the elected governement is recognised with certain powers for the purposes of negotiation and international representation(plus internal matters) .
#3 Egypt acted as a go between and got both sides to agree to stop shooting and killing each other. Egypt stated clearly that both sides agreed to the ceasefire, and neither side disputed it. In fact, again, had you read the links I posted, a leader of Hamas first "embraced" the ceasefire. A week later he was inciting its violation. This further proved the point I was making - you can't trust terrorists to abide by any agreement.

Just so wrong , Israel made no agreement and did not agree to the terms Hamas put forward through Egypt . That is why there was no ceasfire agreement , just unilateral decalarations . Its kinda like the current situation where there are two ceasefires decalred , both unilateral declarations .
And in ongoing negotiations to attempt an agreed ceasfire between both parties Egypt complains it is getting stabbed in the back by Israel every time they make any progress and Israeli negotitors are having to resign because they complain that their own government changes all the proposed terms any time they get close to achieving a deal .
And as for proving the point about dealing with terrorists to get them to abide by a deal , the last century gives hundreds of examples that prove you ignorant of facts . A prime example would be once again the usual outrage in the German media with the early release of yet another RAF terrorist , that is part of the deal the German government made with the terrorists , early release in exchange for stopping killing people .

Hey Stealth Hunter , those passages that were used to "prove" that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Holy Scripture , would they be from the bible or some other Holy Scripture ?

[CaptainHaplo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm

"Speaking on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the truce would be fragile and could be short-lived."

"Hamas's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said the truce would "bring stability to Israel if they commit themselves to it"."

Yea your right - the Prime minister of Israel and the leader of Hamas in Gaza both say there is an agreed truce - How is that unilateral???

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?hp

"The prime minister and defense minister of Israel have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with Hamas for the Gaza area starting Thursday, Israel Radio reported on Wednesday morning."

"Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, confirmed at a news conference there on Tuesday evening that a truce was about to come into effect and that it would last for six months.

A senior Israeli defense ministry official, Amos Gilad, traveled to Cairo on Tuesday night to receive final clarifications from the Egyptians. On his return Wednesday morning, he told Israel Radio that an understanding had been achieved.
Maintaining a note of caution, Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel said on Tuesday that it was "difficult to determine how long" an agreement would last."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55362

"JERUSALEM – A truce Hamas made with Israel in Gaza last November is "officially over," Hamas leaders told WND today, threatening to send suicide bombers into Tel Aviv if the Jewish state retaliates for a major attack carried out this morning. "

Ok the leaders both announce it - then one party "OFFICIALLY' ends the agreement - but I guess there wasnt one.

And no - Hamas is a terrorist organization - and while they did win SOME political power in an election - their actions of forcibly securing Gaza shows they are no government - but a bunch of thugs.

My position remains rooted in the statements of leaders in the know. So I guess now your going to dispute leaders of both sides who say they had an agreement? Lemme guess - you know better than they do? :har:

I fully expect some lame argument from you about this - but the folks here can decide for themselves. I suspect what really has occured is that you read somewhere about a unilateral decision - it being a different date in this issue - and now have yourself backed into a corner and are simply too proud to admit you made a mistake. Either way - not my problem. The facts are above - where are yours to refute the words of the Isreali Prime Minister or multiple Hamas leaders being quoted? Oh thats right - you dont have any..... :rotfl:

So far I have provided multiple sources that say I am right. You can't provide any that disputes me. I know it works different in little tribesmanworld - but in the big grown up world of reality - facts exist.

[Tribesman]

Where is the document Haplo ?
Come on , if it exists where is it ?

And no - Hamas is a terrorist organization - and while they did win SOME political power in an election - their actions of forcibly securing Gaza shows they are no government - but a bunch of thugs.

Wow talk about rewriting history :rotfl:
Are you missing out the attempted coup that sparked that incident for some reason ?

[CaptainHaplo]

Wheres your proof that the Israeli PM and leaders of Hamas were lying about an agreement? I guess everyone reading your inane posts are just supposed to take your word for it? So what qualifies you to be more knowledgable than leaders of the entities involved?

Wait - I know - its because you say so right? Like I said - maybe that works in the fantasy land of tribesmanworld, but here where the grown ups are - it doesnt. Last chance - put up some backing for your position (I know thats an unfair challenge - as you CAN'T -whereas I have) and show a level of maturity that thus far has escaped you, or be content to be seen as the little boy with a big mouth who knows not of what he speaks.

Ultimately - your likely to continue in your ignorance - as you seem to be more about the drama than facts. With that being considered - rise to the challenge or enjoy your bliss. I will waste no further time on trying to be helpful enough to drag you out of your pit of self-rightous delusions, since you choose to ignore reality.

[Tribesman]

Last chance - put up some backing for your position (I know thats an unfair challenge - as you CAN'T -whereas I have)
You mean put up the text of an agreement between the two parties involved ?
Errrrr...there isn't one , it doesn't exist , thats the point .:rotfl:
Which is why all your newpaper articles don't amount to anything , because there wasn't an agreement between two parties there were unilateral declarations because Israel didn't agree to the terms set by Hamas and Hamas didn't agree to the terms set by Israel .
But I know its too hard for you to understand , so hard that if you look into one source you use you will see it written in black and white . There was no actual agreement because they couldn't agree on the terms .
since you choose to ignore reality
Says the man who not only thinks a non-existant document exits but also thinks the bible doesn't say what it says.

[CaptainHaplo]

StealthHunter - Thank you for posting an intelligent arguement regarding Biblical teaching. I will take the opportunity to address them. What I found is that you did not specify which "version" of the Bible you used - not faulting you, but I prefer to know which version your referencing. For consistency sake, I will use the KJV (original version) with notes after on Hebrew where appropriate.

1 Chronicles 16:30 (King James Version)

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 (King James Version)

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 (King James Version)


Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5 (King James Version)

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Isaiah 45:18 (King James Version)

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Note that in your postings, your quotes often used the term "fixed" - whereas other translations use the term "established" or "stablished" - meaning to set up. These passages declare that the world is not to be moved (have its current track altered by outside forces), while you are concluding they say the world does not move. There is a big difference. The root word in Hebrew that is causing this is mowt. It is the same hebrew word used in Psalm 16:8.

Psalm 16:8 (King James Version)

I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

Now if mowt meant "Incapable of movement" - ie - FIXED in a specific physical location - then the Psalmist here would be saying that because the Lord is at his right hand, he (the writer of the psalm) is now and forever rooted to the spot where he wrote the verse. I think its reasonable to say that is not a logical statement. However - he says I shall not be moved - ie - swayed from his path. Thus we see that the confusion for some revolves around an incompete understanding of the hebrew language. The Bible is not geocentric. Just as you going to the local store by the shortest path would mean a "FIXED" or set path, it does not mean you do not move. To get there, you have to. It simply means a set path is one in which no outside force will force you to deviate from. I hope this helps clear up the question in your mind, and again I thank you for posting specific points to be dealt with. Doing so shows a willingness to discuss and learn, as well as inform and instruct others.

[NeonSamurai]

You can't use the King James bible to refute heresy charges from the catholic church, that bible didn't exist back then (and its a protestant bible). You have to use a Latin bible from the time period (or an accurate translation of said bible which the King James is not).

[CaptainHaplo]

Well on that point Neon - I can't speak to defending CATHOLIC teaching - as catholicism isn't Biblically based. The question here is does the BIBLE teach a geocentric view, not whether Catholicism did at one time. The BIBLE does not teach such a thing. As I pointed out in an earlier post to tribesman, quoting some guy who was elected to wear a big pointy white hat who has alot of things wrong with his whole theology does not mean the Scripture is what he says it is. I could claim that the Torah says the moon is made of green cheese - doesn't mean its so (and its not - that was an example). To say that the Bible teaches a geocentric view is wrong.

Now StealthHunter quoted what appeared to be a non-latin Bible (though which version is in question) - and to understand its meaning we must look at the hebrew wording. I used KJV only as an example, one could use any number of other translations - but it all goes back to understanding the language it was translated FROM. Thus my note on the Hebrew word apply regardless of the "variant" of the Bible you choose to use.

I won't put forth any effort defending Catholicism. People can believe what they choose. Bottom line here is that SCRIPTURE doesn't claim the earth is stationary or teach a geocentric view.

[NeonSamurai]

Though it may be worded differently now, it did indeed at one point say just that and was "scripture" at that time. I would also further point out that the KJV was written long after Galileo's theories had been widely accepted, so naturally the bible changed to incorporate that bit of knowledge. Lastly the bible is a constantly evolving entity with many variants and spin offs.

Also in case you forgot the Catholic Church's Latin bible was what the KJV bible was based on and was the only bible back when heliocentric thought was being argued. Also the Catholic Church was Biblicaly based (virtually all bibles in use today are decedents of the 'original' Latin bible, and not the teachings of the Cathars, or the dead sea scrolls).

As for Hebrew that's very dicey to use for many reasons not including the fact that ancient Hebrew did not have or indicate vowels which means that there can be many different possibilities for what word was meant, and on top of it each word can have multiple meanings. This is why debating what the Torah actually means is so popular in the Jewish faith. If you like though I do have a copy of what is considered one of the best (and most recent) translations of the Torah to English with full foot notes on the various debates on words and meanings, So I could check and see what it says on some of those "old testament" quotes.

[Platapus]

If you like though I do have a copy of what is considered one of the best (and most recent) translations of the Torah to English with full foot notes on the various debates on words and meanings

Could you cite that here? That sounds like a good addition to my library.

[CaptainHaplo]

Absolutely Neon - any additional reference material I can get to help my own understanding is always welcome! :yeah:

[NeonSamurai]

Ok will do though it will take some time to reference everything. As for the citation here it is..

THE TORAH A modern Commentary. Edited by W. Gunther Plaut, Union of American Hebrew Congregations. New York, 1981, ISBN 0-8074-0165-X

Is the one I have, but there is also a revised edition which is more recent and uses parallel Hebrew/English translation rather then on top/bottom
http://www.amazon.com/Torah-Modern-Commentary-Revised/dp/0807408832/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj

[NeonSamurai]

Ok well I'm a numb nut today (i blame that I'm sick with a cold and its screwing with my head). To source those quotes I would need the Nevi'im and Ketuvim books, which of course I don't have right now, so to do it i would have to hit the library. However I'll see what I can dig up from "reputable" online sources.

[NeonSamurai]

Anyhow here is a reputable Jewish source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/

1 Chronicles 16:30 Ketuvim
Tremble before Him, all the earth; the world also is established that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 93:1 Ketuvim
HaShem reigneth; He is clothed in majesty; HaShem is clothed, He hath girded Himself with strength; yea, the world is established, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 Ketuvim
Say among the nations: 'The HaShem reigneth.' The world also is established that it cannot be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity.

Psalm 104:5 Ketuvim
Who didst establish the earth upon its foundations, that it should not be moved for ever and ever;

Isaiah 45:18 Nevi'im
For thus saith HaShem that created the heavens, He is G-d; that formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am HaShem, and there is none else.

Psalm 16:8 Ketuvim
I have set HaShem always before me; surely He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

[CaptainHaplo]

Thanks Neon!

Using those passages - you can see the same thought as what I was putting forth.

"Cannot be moved" is in regards to its being established. In fact, all four of the versus in question use the word established itself. Meaning "to set up" or "set upon a path". The earth is set upon its path, both physically and in regards to time and events, and will not be moved from it.

[Tribesman]

So since the christian bible is no good for some as it obviously ain't christian , going from the Jewish genesis Earth is built on foundations and the sun and moon move in the vault/arch of heaven .

So according to Haplo things built on foundations move and things that move don't move .

[Stealth Hunter]

Hey Stealth Hunter , those passages that were used to "prove" that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Holy Scripture , would they be from the bible or some other Holy Scripture ?

The quotes he was using came directly from the Bible, as did mine.

[NeonSamurai]

Keep in mind that the source of the "old testament" was the major Jewish religious books (though heavily edited by the RC church to suit their own views).

As for interpreting the meaning, well that's been debated going back thousands of years and is still heavily debated. There is a near infinite number of interpretations to what is contained in the three books. The same could also be said of Christian and Islamic texts as well.

At any rate the Catholic church (Which was the religion that controlled Europe for a very long period of time) tended to interpret the meanings in a very literal and rigid way (which some protestant sects also do). You can also see the evolution of even these quotes and how they are perceived just looking at the 3 versions quoted.

[Tribesman]

The quotes he was using came directly from the Bible, as did mine.
When they tried Galileo for heresy did they use quotes directly from the bible ?:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

StealthHunter - Thank you for posting an intelligent arguement regarding Biblical teaching. I will take the opportunity to address them. What I found is that you did not specify which "version" of the Bible you used - not faulting you, but I prefer to know which version your referencing.

I put NLT for the first one (used the New Living Translation for the others, too).

For consistency sake, I will use the KJV (original version) with notes after on Hebrew where appropriate.

1 Chronicles 16:30 (King James Version)

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 (King James Version)

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 (King James Version)


Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5 (King James Version)

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Isaiah 45:18 (King James Version)

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
These passages declare that the world is not to be moved (have its current track altered by outside forces), while you are concluding they say the world does not move.
Psalm 16:8 (King James Version)[/B]

I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Now if mowt meant "Incapable of movement" - ie - FIXED in a specific physical location - then the Psalmist here would be saying that because the Lord is at his right hand, he (the writer of the psalm) is now and forever rooted to the spot where he wrote the verse. I think its reasonable to say that is not a logical statement. However - he says I shall not be moved - ie - swayed from his path. Thus we see that the confusion for some revolves around an incompete understanding of the hebrew language.
The Just as you going to the local store by the shortest path would mean a "FIXED" or set path, it does not mean you do not move. To get there, you have to. It simply means a set path is one in which no outside force will force you to deviate from. I hope this helps clear up the question in your mind, and again I thank you for posting specific points to be dealt with. Doing so shows a willingness to discuss and learn, as well as inform and instruct others.

I ask everyone here to please not use the King James Version of the Bible in the future of this thread because, as NeonSamurai pointed out, Galileo's theories and Copernicus' had been widely accepted by the majority of Europeans, so it was only natural that since the King James Bible be made to incorporate such views (to make it appear factually accurate and, in addition, please the enlightened masses). Hence, I do not think it a valid source to use in this discussion and I will not comment on the parts of your post which do use it. The Hebrew parts, however, I have no problem with since there's plenty of sources to consult on them.

Note that in your postings, your quotes often used the term "fixed" - whereas other translations use the term "established" or "stablished" - meaning to set up.

In the King James Version, yes.

The Bible is not geocentric.

The old versions are. That much has been made quite clear. The New Living Translation Bible is done word for word; nothing was changed or amended from the oldest copies we have (unlike the KJB). In addition, we know that the Jews did agree with the Babylonian's views on the universe and the planet, so unless evidence circulates that proves otherwise (that they did indeed think that Earth rotate on its axis, revolves around the sun, and this is because of gravity and the mass of planets/objects in space), that's what we have to leave it as.

[Stealth Hunter]

When they tried Galileo for heresy did they use quotes directly from the bible ?

Yes, they did. Specifically, the Psalms section and Ecclesiastes and the Chronicles section.

[Stealth Hunter]

As for interpreting the meaning, well that's been debated going back thousands of years and is still heavily debated. There is a near infinite number of interpretations to what is contained in the three books. The same could also be said of Christian and Islamic texts as well.

That's true, too. However, I think we should stick to both the facts and interpretations, but not rely upon interpretations alone.

We know the ancient Jews stuck with Babylonian views on the universe and the Earth. They believed that Earth was flat, fixed on a set of pillars, had a solid dome that covered us from the things outside and acted as the sky, and they believed that Earth was the center of the universe. Unless evidence circulates that proves they thought otherwise, then we can only conclude that they never strayed from the path of ancient Babylon's "scientific" beliefs.

At any rate the Catholic church (Which was the religion that controlled Europe for a very long period of time) tended to interpret the meanings in a very literal and rigid way (which some protestant sects also do). You can also see the evolution of even these quotes and how they are perceived just looking at the 3 versions quoted.

True too. I'm very happy to know now that the Catholics are a lot more open than they used to be. You know both Pope John Paul II and the current Pope Benedict accepted evolution as a scientific fact? They had a news article on it here (for John Paul):

http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

No, the people who annoy me more than anything are Creationists and Biblical fundamentalists (people who think Noah's ark and the accounts of Genesis should be taken as fact). Have you seen some of the stuff they preach? Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk

Doesn't it just sicken you? And the fallacies they use infuriate me even more, especially that dumbass Ken Ham. Mr. Ham, I hate to tell you this, but if dinosaurs and humans lived together, we'd be dead. The dietary habits we know they had prove that we would have been a very short-lived species.

And to the woman at 1:51, you might want to recheck the scientific evidence. And I don't mean consult Ken Ham or Kent Hovind (who is currently serving a prison sentence for over 50 counts of tax evasion), I mean actually go to a museum or a scientific institute and get the facts.

Even worse, they brainwash kids with their garbage...:nope:

[NeonSamurai]

I agree that by in large that was most probably the view held by the Israelites, though it may have been debated by scholars at the time (would have to poke around the Talmud and the like to see what was debated then). Also it is quite clear what the Roman Catholic church believed at that time as we still have many records of heresy and witchcraft trials, along with scholarly writing of the time. The trials also certainly did happen.

No, the people who annoy me more than anything are Creationists and Biblical fundamentalists (people who think Noah's ark and the accounts of Genesis should be taken as fact). Have you seen some of the stuff they preach? Look here:

Doesn't it just sicken you? And the fallacies they use infuriate me even more, especially that dumbass Ken Ham. Mr. Ham, I hate to tell you this, but if dinosaurs and humans lived together, we'd be dead. The dietary habits we know they had prove that we would have been a very short-lived species.

And to the woman at 1:51, you might want to recheck the scientific evidence. And I don't mean consult Ken Ham or Kent Hovind (who is currently serving a prison sentence for over 50 counts of tax evasion), I mean actually go to a museum or a scientific institute and get the facts.
I pretty much agree, and would add that my biggest pet peeve is those who proclaim their religion to be the sole one true religion and everyone is stupid and wrong and should either be tortured, die, and/or burn in hell/whatever for it. In spite of the fact there have been hundreds to thousands (depending on how far back one goes) of religions before it claiming the exact same thing.

In my view everything should be taken with a grain of salt, including science (which does share a lot of similarities with religion). Otherwise everything stands still if taken as an absolute.

[Digital_Trucker]

In my view everything should be taken with a grain of salt, including science (which does share a lot of similarities with religion). Otherwise everything stands still if taken as an absolute.

Amen to that:yeah: The common problem with all religions, sciences, etc is that all interpretations are made by an inherently flawed being (homo sapiens).

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok lets get back to the original thing that started this. That was the comment that teaching based on the bible would be geocentric. Now - while we can alll agree that the the Bible has gone thru numerous revisions (which is undeniable fact), I fail to see anything here that says the woman involved - or modern judeao-christianity for that matter - teach any geocentric theology.

In all my research regarding the current version of modern judeao-xtian theology, there is only a VERY minor subset that still holds fast to geocentric ideas. In fact, they are seen as extremely whacked out people by the mainstream followers. Few in fact even know they exist.

I bring this up because, having done what I could researching the church in question - the "Sound Doctrine" church in NC - I could find nothing affiliating the woman's chosen house of worship with any geocentric theological offshoot.

Outside of a few weirdos, Scripture teaching is not interpreted in any way to be geocentric. Therefore the original statement that Biblical teaching would require that the children at issue in this case would be taught a geocentric view of the universe is wrong.

[NeonSamurai]

Hmm being sick and also tired, but how did heliocentric thought (and the opposite) come into the argument? The father in the trial was concerned, according to the article, that the child was only receiving religiously slanted science with creationism and excluding evolution. I would also be concerned if I was the father simply because I have yet to see any strong evidence supporting creationism that hasn't been by in large rationaly disproved. Evolution does have stronger evidence to support it, though it also almost certainly flawed and/or incomplete given our base nature.

[Tribesman]

Hmm being sick and also tired, but how did heliocentric thought (and the opposite) come into the argument?
I think it became one when some in error insisted that scripture doesn't support those geocentric views .:hmmm:

So the geocentric view was initially stated because the cretinist view is that a fundamentalist literal interpretation of scripture trumps scientific theories in education because the bible can't be wrong .
So if that is true and they believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and was made complete in six days then they must also believe that the earth has foundations and is covered by a bowl (or arch if you go for the greek rather than the hebrew) because thats what the good book says.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - it came into question because someone suggested that teaching from a biblical standpoint required the mother to teach a geocentric view of the universe. That is why I tried to steer this back to it. Having attended a private high school, where the teaching was centered on the bible (considering I also had a 1 hr bible class every danged day) - I know that unless your dealing with a wacko fringe group, modern Xtianity does not interpret scripture as such.

To boil it all down, it basically was a troll trying to disparage a belief system in the hopes of stirring up drama, whereas the result was a rather informative discourse that I hope many, myself included, learned a bit from.

[Tribesman]

I know that unless your dealing with a wacko fringe group, modern Xtianity does not interpret scripture as such.

An accurate perspective , but that wasn't the point .
While you think the point was....it basically was a troll trying to disparage a belief system in the hopes of stirring up drama,
The point wasn't to disparage anyone apart from those who take a fundamentalist literalist interpretation , not that such an approach is new considering St Augustine a very long time ago said that fundamentalist literalists are muppets with little faith and even less understanding who hold the religion up for ridicule

So is the insistance on teaching fundamentalist literal interpretations of scripture as science in science classes restricted to a wacko fringe group ?
Is using the scriptures to teach against the theory of evolution really any different from using the scriptures to teach against the heliocentric view ?

[Frame57]

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.
Actually that's not true either. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the Earth in the second century B.C., and Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, had done further calculations not much after that. Columbus' chief opponent didn't believe the Earth was flat, but that it was much larger than Columbus himself claimed. It turned out that he was right and old Cristoforo Columbo was wrong.

The belief that they thought the Earth was flat is an invention of Washington Irving.So, you are saying no one thought the earth was flat? It was a common belief back then. Where in hell do you think the idea of "sailing of the edge of the world came from". Of course some obviously did get this by simply placing two sticks apart and calculating the shadow of the sun. But the idea was not mainstream by any stretch...