Does the Sun Move According to the Bible?

[Hedshaker]

Our Galaxy revolves around others, which guarantees that the sun, spinning with our galaxy, revolves around the earth as well.

Illustration: a tether ball always revolves around the pole, but with the earth spinning, while the ball is sitting still, the pole can be said to revolve around the ball as much as the ball is said to revolve around the pole.

Everything is in motion. But regarding what I believe the OP is suggesting I think we can safely rules out geocentricism as an option, regardless what the Bible may or may not have indicated.

Aristarchus of Samos proposed an heliocentric system long before Copernicus, which I didn't know until just now. How about that? I actually learned something useful from my time here :think:

Still, the church sure frowned upon Copernicus for his audacity.

Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system.

Source

 

[GuySmiley]

Yes, it is wrong. The Sun does not, in ANY sense revolve around the Earth - period.

From an earth centered reference it does in fact travel around the earth in a near circle. Yes, they both revolve around a common center of gravity and Earth's orbit is slightly eccentric, that's why I said nearly.

No, actually you would not be right because there is no such thing as an Earth centered motion of the Sun - it does not exist.

If there is such a thing as a Sun centered motion of the Earth, then opposite exists as well.

The earth is not stationary - period.

All motion is in reference to some point of observation. Your speedometer assumes the earth is stationary. That is still useful and accurate information.

Any "frame of reference" that suggests otherwise is fantasy. You might be able to describe such a frame of reference but that doesn't mean that frame actually exists in reality. The reality is that the Earth and Sun revolve around a common center of mass.

Every frame of reference is fantasy (as in, its just a concept, like math). Can you name one that isn't? If I run a 4.6 40yd dash (I wish), the unspoken point of reference is the guy with the timer, or the starting line. Do you protest that point of reference when you hear track and field results? Do you always insist the Sun must be the point of reference for everything? No, of course not, then why must the Sun be the only point of reference when looking at our solar system?

Your error comes from having bought, at least in part, into the modern religion of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which are not science - they are NOT science - they are mathematics at best and a straight up religion are worst.

I haven't bought into these and I don't see why they are even applicable here.

PS To be clear I'm not saying anything about physics here, of course the Earth and other planets all orbit around a common center of gravity with our Sun. But its really useful to change reference frames far various purposes especially when talking orbits.

 

[Clete]

PS To be clear I'm not saying anything about physics here, of course the Earth and other planets all orbit around a common center of gravity with our Sun. But its really useful to change reference frames far various purposes especially when talking orbits.

Thank you for the PS! I was beginning to worry!

 

[Hedshaker]

The Bible does not say the sun moves around the earth.

I'm no Bible scholar but I was under the impression that the church, at that time, believed the Earth to be the centre of the universe.

The Bible authors couldn't possibly know much about it at that time. Yet the church, who I assume got their information from the Bible, didn't much care for Copernicus suggesting a Sun-Centered Solar System.

Just shows how anyone can get stuff wrong without the wonder of science.

 

[Hedshaker]

So the year is 1950. There are no government sponsored pictures of the earth from space. Prove it is moving and the sun is not.

Dude, everything is moving, but the Sun as never orbited the Earth. It's not rocket science. Pun intended P)

 

[Daniel1769]

It is you who are not being consistent. It is common vernacular even today to speak of the Sun rising and the Sun setting as though it were the Sun moving and not the Earth even though the motions of the Earth and Sun are clearly understood. It is a figure of speech.

For you to be consistent you'd have to insist that the bible never uses figures of speech. You'd have to accept, for example, that God the Father has an actual arm, that believers are salt and that all of Israel came to Jesus to be baptized.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Did you read the verses I posted? I'm not talking about saying "the sun rises." The verse said the sun moved back 10 degrees in it's going forth. It is claiming the sun moves, then moved backwards. So what is your explanation? That the earth moved backward? Explain to me how something moving 68,000 mph just suddenly stops or shifts direction without causing any problems. Even if you do, you would still be saying that the Biblical author was incorrect.

 

[Clete]

Did you read the verses I posted? I'm not talking about saying "the sun rises." The verse said the sun moved back 10 degrees in it's going forth. It is claiming the sun moves, then moved backwards. So what is your explanation? That the earth moved backward?

That the earth reversed it's spin, knuckle head! That's what makes the Sun "move" across the sky!

Explain to me how something moving 68,000 mph just suddenly stops or shifts direction without causing any problems.

Well, it doesn't - unless its a MIRACLE!!!

DUH!

Even if you do, you would still be saying that the Biblical author was incorrect.

No I absolutely would not be doing any such thing!

Was the bible incorrect when it said that God has an arm?

Was the bible incorrect when it said "all Israel came to Jesus to be baptized"?

Its a figure of speech! Everyone understands what its saying! That is, veryone except you, apparently.

 

[Daniel1769]

Thanks for telling us what the Bible MEANT to say. I'll get my sharpie and cross out the parts that are wrong and write your wisdom in.

 

[Clete]

Thanks for telling us what the Bible MEANT to say. I'll get my sharpie and cross out the parts that are wrong and write your wisdom in.

You do that!

You'd be way better off doing that than to think the whole universe revolves once a day around the Earth!

 

[Daniel1769]

You do that!

You'd be way better off doing that than to think the whole universe revolves once a day around the Earth!

Why do you believe it doesn't? Because they told you so in school? Because Carl Sagan said it? Because Newton said it? Do you have any observational or experimental evidence that the earth moves at all? Or are you just repeating what you were told?

 

[Clete]

Why do you believe it doesn't? Because they told you so in school? Because Carl Sagan said it? Because Newton said it? Do you have any observational or experimental evidence that the earth moves at all? Or are you just repeating what you were told?

Why do I believe that the whole entire universe does not revolve around the earth once a day?

You cannot seriously be asking me that question!

I don't believe it because I don't believe in fairy tales. I don't believe idiotic things and if the bible taught such things it would not be proof that such things are true but that the bible is false.

 

[6days]

if the bible taught such things it would not be proof that such things are true but that the bible is false.

If the Bible taught such things, then that's the way it would be.

 

[tetelestai]

Why do you believe it doesn't? Because they told you so in school? Because Carl Sagan said it? Because Newton said it? Do you have any observational or experimental evidence that the earth moves at all? Or are you just repeating what you were told?

You are correct.

Neither geocentrism or heliocentrism can be proven or unproven.

Heliocentrist's claim two proofs: geostat satellites, and Foucault Pendulums.

However, the Allais Effect not only shows the Foucault Pendulum doesn't support heliocentrism, it actually supports geocentrism.

Think about the effect on society if geocentrism was proven true? If it was proven that everything revolved around the earth, atheists would have no argument, it would prove there was a God. That's why atheists have such a vested interest in heliocentrism, and mock those who believe in geocentrism, which is what the Bible supports.

Also, don't pay much attention to Clete. He's just a blowhard who likes to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

 

[GuySmiley]

You are correct.

Neither geocentrism or heliocentrism can be proven or unproven.

Heliocentrist's claim two proofs: geostat satellites, and Foucault Pendulums.

However, the Allais Effect not only shows the Foucault Pendulum doesn't support heliocentrism, it actually supports geocentrism.

Think about the effect on society if geocentrism was proven true? If it was proven that everything revolved around the earth, atheists would have no argument, it would prove there was a God. That's why atheists have such a vested interest in heliocentrism, and mock those who believe in geocentrism, which is what the Bible supports.

Also, don't pay much attention to Clete. He's just a blowhard who likes to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

Does NASA know about geocentrism? How did we send satellites to Mars if they don't? The math would be all wrong. How did New Horizons reach Pluto?

Why do the other planets orbit the Sun, but the Sun orbits Earth? Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

 

[tetelestai]

Does NASA know about geocentrism?

Actually, NASA uses the geocentric model for all its launches.

How did we send satellites to Mars if they don't?
The math would be all wrong. How did New Horizons reach Pluto?

In a nutshell, if you invert all the formulas, you get the same results in the other model.

Why do the other planets orbit the Sun, but the Sun orbits Earth?

According to Genesis, God created the earth first, then the sun, moon, and stars:

(Gen 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

Gravity has nothing to do with geocentrism vs. heliocentrism.

 

[Nick M]

I'm no Bible scholar but I was under the impression that the church, at that time, believed the Earth to be the centre of the universe.

That is like saying the "leader of the church" when referring to the Roman Catholic Pope.

 

[tetelestai]

As I said, neither model can be proven true or false.

Albert Einstein said the same thing:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." - Albert Einstein

 

[tetelestai]

Explain to me how something moving 68,000 mph just suddenly stops or shifts direction without causing any problems.

That's only part of the heliocentric equation.

Heliocentrism has the earth spinning at 1,000 mph, the earth rotating the sun at 68,000 mph, our solar system rotating the Milky Way Galaxy at 500,000 mph, and the Milky Way speeding through the universe at some speed they haven't really figured out yet.

For Clete's theory to be correct, all of the above motions would have to come to a complete stop, and reverse themselves.

 

[User Name]

Actually, NASA uses the geocentric model for all its launches.

In a nutshell, if you invert all the formulas, you get the same results in the other model.

To us, sitting here on the surface of a planet, geocentrism is a perfectly valid frame of reference. Heck, astronomers use it all the time to point our telescopes. We map the sky using a projected latitude and longitude, and we talk about things rising and setting. That’s not only natural, but a very easy way to do those sorts of things. In that case, thinking geocentrically makes sense.

However, as soon as you want to send a space probe to another planet, geocentrism becomes cumbersome. In that case, it’s far easier to use the Sun as the center of the Universe and measure the rotating and revolving Earth as just another planet. The math works out better, and in fact it makes more common sense...

Geocentrists, at this point, fall into two cases: those who use relativity to bolster their claim, and those who deny it.

Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments.

Fail.

The other flavor of Geocentrist, those who deny relativity wholesale, are wrong as well. Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work...

So — you guessed it — either way, Geocentrism is wrong.​

-- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/

 

[tetelestai]

Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct!

Correct

But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame.

Correct

So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments.

That's not what I'm doing.

I made it clear that both geocentrism and heliocentrism can neither be proven true or false.

It's a philosophical choice for which model a person chooses.