The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:08 am
Sadly most peoples reasoning fails when it comes to assume the same of the Book of Mormon.
Please start different threads on topics not relevant to this OP.
Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:03 am
And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Yes, modern translations use the word "expanse". Why would expanse necessarily refer to a hard, solid sphere?
One only needs to read the Old Testament to see its authors described a flat (tho' sometimes square or rectangular Earth with a 'firmament' or expanse separating the waters below from the waters above.
I've already addressed all this about the snow dome cosmology. But, if you want to go back to it, please cite all the verses that explicitly says the earth is flat.
The church's doctrines on cosmology have changed, slowly, reluctantly, but 'the word' has not.
Yes, the church's position on cosmology has changed over history. But so has those outside the church. So, I see no relevance to this statement.
The Bible has been reflective of the culture that it was translated in. This is a crucial understanding that most do not consider. The example of the evolution of cosmology in culture demonstrates this.
Or are you saying the original Hebrew Torah was a translation? ... from what?
No, I'm not talking about the original languages, I'm talking about translations. In my arguments about the firmament, we see this evolution in the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and first English translations. In the original Hebrew, it was "raqia". The translation of this word reflects the evolution of cosmological ideas in culture.
However, this view of the world was simply not the way that Ancient Hebrews (or Greco-Roman era Hebrews) thought of the universe. The Ancient Hebrew Cosmology (by today’s standards) seems a bit more simplistic (this is not to say that it is, because it isn’t). Instead of a planet hurtling through space, the Ancient Hebrews conceived of the world more like this:"
I do not think that source is intending to say that model was how they viewed the universe was reality in a purely physical sense. From your source:
Obviously, there are some differences with the prevailing modern view of the universe. The one key difference I want to note is the placement of three locations that many moderns tend to view as ‘supernatural’– sheol, heaven, and the heaven of heavens.
This is especially important because the ancients generally did not draw a firm distinction between natural and supernatural, as post-Enlightenment thinkers often do. This means that when we introduce concepts such as entirely spiritual domains (like many people’s versions of heaven and hell), we’re actually introducing concepts that would be entirely foreign to the way that the ancients would have viewed the nature of the universe. When you died, whether good or bad, the spiritual side of you didn’t somehow vanish into the unknown. Instead, your entire being went to the place of the dead. Further, God was not some entirely removed being from the world. He was understood to rule over the world and to be a part of reality itself. (As an aside, you should find a map of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth and compare its cosmology to that of the Ancient Hebrews. You may be surprised at some similarities.)
Please note that I’m not suggesting that you adopt a fully ancient cosmology in your own life. And also note that I’m not fully advocating the modern view of the universe that entirely separates that natural and supernatural. Instead, I hope to advocate a cosmology that balances the wisdom of the Ancient Hebrew model with the insights of modern thinking. This cosmology recognizes the vastness of the measurable physical universe while holding that the physical is not the entirety of reality. And it affirms that the totality of a person does not exist as some radically divorced form of spirit/soul and body, but as a created whole.
And let me repeat the question:
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:35 amIf you were an observer of the heavens before the invention of the telescope and space ships, how would you prove heliocentrism is true?
My search engine defaults to the myth Russell exposed and that we learned in elementary school. Perhaps you can find an official church position from the first half dozen centuries or so.
) a vast difference between the knowledge and beliefs of the well educated versus "the masses."
”
"
