- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Friday, June 2, 2017
... on CMI Mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (first half of video)
... on CMI Mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (first half of video) · ... on CMI mixing Flat Earth and Geocentrism (on second half of video too)
The Flat Earth myth and the Bible. (Creation Magazine LIVE! 6-11)
Already on intro : what do you mean by "pre-scientific"?
At 3:15 - why are you omitting St Thomas Aquinas from the Round Earth list?
Summa Theologica, part 1 q 1 a 1.
Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.
Reply to objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
My emphasis. Link: http://newadvent.com/summa/1001.htm
Ah, he gets a separate entry at 4:51 - very good!
And his wording is somewhat different, since he repeats it in I-II, q 54, a 2, there also in reply to objection 2. Thanks for extra reference.
3:30 c. St Bede popularised the AD reckoning, but as to calling years before it is relevant BC years, that came about 900 - 1000 years later.
4:06 "Bede was the first with that insight about the moon and the tides, and Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later"
No quibble about Galileo statement, no quibble about St Bede having that insight, but was he the first? Didn't he have it from Aristotle?
10:24 Draper and White had a French colleague, Camille Flammarion, who was in Theosophical society and published his book Météorologie populaire in 1888.
Flammarion's famous wood cut was used to illustrate his words about Ptolemaic theory of the universe (one which St Thomas Aquinas by the way did not think infallible : the Geocentrics who condemned Galileo were Tychonians rather than Ptolemaics).
I have a hunch it could have a model in some Bible illustrating the book of Hezechiel : because upper left corner (from spectator) there is a wheel within a wheel.
10:34 Fine scientist, lousy historian ... I think I have heard this before. And I'd add that if you want to know the history of science, most historians of science should be avoided in favour of historians. Honorable exception for ...
12:15 You mean Stephen Jay Gould was a conspiracy theorist? He actually taught one part of major aspects of modern culture was deliberately planted to enforce a bad attitude against Christians?
[For those not capting my irony : statements like that have gotten me stamped as a conspiracy theorist, from time to time!]
13:51 Joshua 10 is relevant for a totally other debate, namely geocentrism/geostasis vs geokinetism/still often called heliocentrism (though not strictly accurate about modern cosmology). NOT about flat earth, these two topics are different.
14:12 "today we use the same language conventions the Bible used here"
Well, are you sure the Bible could NOT have meant what some people still mean, namely Sun actually going across the sky? [Psalms 18:6] is a bit more explicit than just "sunset" and "sunrise". It is a bit misleading to smuggle in he topic of geocentrism into a video about the topic of Flat Earth.
14:39 Supposing Joshua 10:13 could indeed be explained by phenomenological language.
This is not the case with Joshua 10:12. Joshua, having spoken first to God, is inspired to adress Sun and Moon and tell THEM, not Earth, to stop moving. Nor can you explain it like God hearing a prayer while dismissing unimportant misconception in the mind of the prayer.
The words are NOT "God, make the Sun stop". They are "Sun, stand thou still". And, giving an extra astronomical clinch, "Moon, move thou not from ..." These words are NOT the prayer, unless you consider he considered Sun and Moon as names for God. These words came between the prayer and the miracle.