No no we cant have this !

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]

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).

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaploThere 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.

[B

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

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.

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 .

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.