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-C...r_dp_orig_subj

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.

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

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

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.

In the King James Version, yes.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.