Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong  (Read 29927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2017, 03:57:01 PM »
Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.


Please explain day/night on your version of geocentrism, which includes the Biblical non-rotating, non-moving earth.
Thanks!

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »
Psalm 104:5 "Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever."
If you are going to accuse others of error, at least do us the service of quoting from a Catholic Bible.  This is either the Darby bible or the Good News Translation.  Especially when we're talking about semantics of individual words, protty texts aren't going to cut it.


Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2017, 04:17:57 PM »
Let's look at the Latin for starters.  Psalms 103:5 "qui fundasti terram super basem suam non commovebitur in saeculum et in saeculum"

Commovebitur (from online latin dictionary dot com)

1 passive form of [commoveo]
2 to shake, to stir up, to agitate
3 to displace (emphasis mine), to disturb, to trouble, to worry, to upset
4 to jolt
5 to excite
6 to waken
7 to provoke
8 (money or camp) to move
9 to produce
10 (war) to cause, start
11 (point) to raise

Now this is just the Latin translation from the original (Hebrew?).  So let's say that the latin meant commovebitur in the sense of "to be displaced", as it is clearly listed in the third definition of this word.  Why should we then assume that the literal interpretation must be the eighth sense of the word listed in authoritative latin dictionaries?

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2017, 04:22:52 PM »
The group is on Mark Sargent's youtube channel?  Shouldn't they have a website of their own if they are indeed a group?

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2017, 04:36:17 PM »
Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth - now said to be approximately 11,650 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.  


‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements of 92.96 million miles]. ---David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.

Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?

Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

The flat-earth proposal depends on the unbelievable idea that all space photography of a curved earth is one of the biggest hoaxes ever, with thousands and thousands of global-earthers conspiring to keep the flat-earth a secret with not one whistler-blower ever to emerge over 50 years. There may well be relative facts that could be used by both FEers and GEers but there is so much (like distances and now speeds) that have to be denied to procure a flat-earth that we are still a million miles away from a proven flat earth. The evidence for a global earth is enough to convince me at any rate that The Child of Prague got it right.


Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

I question that God supercedes his own laws of physics to promote relativity.