On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Yes, "the spin" continues, yet still nothing offered on how rotation is related to the gravity of Earth.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
It isn't the rotation alone, it's the 'movement' - inertia. Rotation, however, certainly involves inertia - for the earth to stand still, the rotation of earth AND everything on earth - and all the various 'parts' of the earth - would all have to be simultaneously halted. If only the earth (the physical planet) stopped rotating, inertia would tear the atmosphere, the oceans, every plant and animal - all these things would CONTINUE to move at roughly (let me just delete that because I should have had my coffee before trying to do anything with numbers)
Earth - circumference about 24000 miles. Rotational speed, about 1000 miles/hour.
That (obviously) didn't happen. So you have two choices: A) it never happened and the story as described doesn't mean what it appears to mean or B) God not only stopped the earth ('the sun' in the story) but ALSO stopped everything on, in and around earth at exactly the same moment (and restarted it all in an instant as well, of course).
Gravity says masses attract to each other and actually 'bend' space (or the space-time continuum, as Dr Brown used to say). Halting one planet (or one sun) from it's normal movement in the universe would affect every other sun, star and planet in this galaxy (eventually, moving out in time from the point where movement stops).
The story says 'the sun stood still'. In order for that to happen, either the EARTH ceased (along with everything on it) to move or the entire solar system as a whole stopped - which would necessarily effect via gravity the entire galaxy....
I really prefer the explanation that, to the soldiers involved, it just really seemed like an awfully long, long day! Option A.
Edited because I should never try to do anything involving numbers before I have my coffee. Sorry.
Look - if the Bible is 'inerrant' as to fact, then God just did the most major miracle since Creation of the World (and the Flood, because that has to be 'literally true and factually accurate too). But I will go with Occam's Razor every time I can, and not only is there no 'evidence' to support 'the sun stood still' (or a world wide flood), there is in fact considerable practical problems with both those events. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always to be preferred, says Occam, and I agree: the sun didn't stand still, people just THOUGHT it did (and said so). There was no worldwide total flood, but there was at least one (or probably several) bloody great BIG ones in southern Mesopotamia, which is so darned flat you can practically see the earth's curvature (so says my friend the Marine who spent three stints there), and you could float around with your goats and sheep for days and days, at least, and you'd certainly THINK the waters covered the whole entire world, because it covered every bit of the world you had ever seen.
Earth - circumference about 24000 miles. Rotational speed, about 1000 miles/hour.
That (obviously) didn't happen. So you have two choices: A) it never happened and the story as described doesn't mean what it appears to mean or B) God not only stopped the earth ('the sun' in the story) but ALSO stopped everything on, in and around earth at exactly the same moment (and restarted it all in an instant as well, of course).
Gravity says masses attract to each other and actually 'bend' space (or the space-time continuum, as Dr Brown used to say). Halting one planet (or one sun) from it's normal movement in the universe would affect every other sun, star and planet in this galaxy (eventually, moving out in time from the point where movement stops).
The story says 'the sun stood still'. In order for that to happen, either the EARTH ceased (along with everything on it) to move or the entire solar system as a whole stopped - which would necessarily effect via gravity the entire galaxy....
I really prefer the explanation that, to the soldiers involved, it just really seemed like an awfully long, long day! Option A.
Edited because I should never try to do anything involving numbers before I have my coffee. Sorry.
Look - if the Bible is 'inerrant' as to fact, then God just did the most major miracle since Creation of the World (and the Flood, because that has to be 'literally true and factually accurate too). But I will go with Occam's Razor every time I can, and not only is there no 'evidence' to support 'the sun stood still' (or a world wide flood), there is in fact considerable practical problems with both those events. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always to be preferred, says Occam, and I agree: the sun didn't stand still, people just THOUGHT it did (and said so). There was no worldwide total flood, but there was at least one (or probably several) bloody great BIG ones in southern Mesopotamia, which is so darned flat you can practically see the earth's curvature (so says my friend the Marine who spent three stints there), and you could float around with your goats and sheep for days and days, at least, and you'd certainly THINK the waters covered the whole entire world, because it covered every bit of the world you had ever seen.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
The moon does rotate so the same side faces the earth as it revolves. Its gravity is not related to rotation but mass. The earth rotates much faster. 24,901 miles/24 hr = 1,037.5 miles/hr It bulges on the equator from its rotation. It is not a perfect sphere. I have been close to the equator and still cannot lose weight.klp wrote:Yes, "the spin" continues, yet still nothing offered on how rotation is related to the gravity of Earth.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
.
Last edited by zeek on Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I'm a work in progress - and the new miracles thread is in Old Paths Revisited, where it fits better.
I intended this discussion to be about how being taught the Bible is literally and factually inerrant was an 'impact' on my life - and how it didn't HAVE to be that way, because scriptural inerrancy was never supposed to mean 'literally and factually correct about absolutely everything' in the first place.
So - did anybody ELSE have a little cognitive dissonance going on between church teachings and an actual education in grade school? Because I know I sure did, but my questions at church got shut down REAL fast. Apparently having a question = having a doubt, and having a doubt = sinning.
Sigh.
I intended this discussion to be about how being taught the Bible is literally and factually inerrant was an 'impact' on my life - and how it didn't HAVE to be that way, because scriptural inerrancy was never supposed to mean 'literally and factually correct about absolutely everything' in the first place.
So - did anybody ELSE have a little cognitive dissonance going on between church teachings and an actual education in grade school? Because I know I sure did, but my questions at church got shut down REAL fast. Apparently having a question = having a doubt, and having a doubt = sinning.
Sigh.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Agri, I got cognitive dissonance just from reading your posting claiming that one can know beyond dispute and factually who didn't write a piece of script that no longer exists. But, hey, asking questions about how that could possibly be known was shut down and diverted with something about Joshua and gravity. And then seemingly asking questions about unknowable things that are claimed to be beyond dispute is being black/white in thinking. There is orthodoxy all around, and asking questions is not appreciated or welcomed it seems.
Oh and for the record, Agri you have still not explained how the Earth spinning (or not) on an axis effects, creates, changes, or defies gravity...and certainly not to the extent that you say Joshua and gravity cannot co-exist. But yes, spinning, inertia...even Mormons on bicycles are fine with that. But I have never heard someone claim that the rotation of a body relates to the gravity of that body to the extent you claim. Please explain."Do you seriously want to talk about why gravity and why the story of Joshua can't co-exist? I suppose that does tie into the 'inerrancy' topic."
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
-
Tsathoggua
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:55 pm
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
agricola wrote:I'm a work in progress - and the new miracles thread is in Old Paths Revisited, where it fits better.
I intended this discussion to be about how being taught the Bible is literally and factually inerrant was an 'impact' on my life - and how it didn't HAVE to be that way, because scriptural inerrancy was never supposed to mean 'literally and factually correct about absolutely everything' in the first place.
So - did anybody ELSE have a little cognitive dissonance going on between church teachings and an actual education in grade school? Because I know I sure did, but my questions at church got shut down REAL fast. Apparently having a question = having a doubt, and having a doubt = sinning.
Sigh.
"Sigh", indeed! Yes, I had my doubts very early on. I learned that people weren't too happy when you expressed them out loud. No one was actually interested in discussion; you were supposed to just sit there stupidly and silently, and accept the bible as the ultimate truth.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
klp -
Just assume for the sake of STOPPING an argument, that agricola was throwing out 'gravity' as a shortcut term for 'all science, physics and math known to mankind' and leave it at that, okay? Because that is all it was, really.
Just assume for the sake of STOPPING an argument, that agricola was throwing out 'gravity' as a shortcut term for 'all science, physics and math known to mankind' and leave it at that, okay? Because that is all it was, really.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
OK, I just tried that for a few minutes. But that just increased my cognitive dissonance because instead of just using gravity as quick or generic term the idea of rotation being tied to gravity was repeated, given as a concrete example, and later characterized as so obviously true that no explanation was needed or warranted.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Hi all,
This topic is in a Support and Agreement forum.
agricola's intended topic is how the CoC teaching that the Bible is literally and factually inerrant had an 'impact' on her life - and how it didn't HAVE to be that way, because scriptural inerrancy was never supposed to mean 'literally and factually correct about absolutely everything' in the first place.
For a discussion of Differing Views regarding inerrancy, miracles, gravity and rotation, check out the "Miracles" forum in "Old Paths Reconsidered".
This topic is in a Support and Agreement forum.
agricola's intended topic is how the CoC teaching that the Bible is literally and factually inerrant had an 'impact' on her life - and how it didn't HAVE to be that way, because scriptural inerrancy was never supposed to mean 'literally and factually correct about absolutely everything' in the first place.
For a discussion of Differing Views regarding inerrancy, miracles, gravity and rotation, check out the "Miracles" forum in "Old Paths Reconsidered".