Some of you i've spoken to distrust science if it contradicts scripture. [Spirituality & Religion]

@GodSpeed63

😏

@GodSpeed63 So, Galileo was wrong and the sun circles the earth as in Joshua?

@redredred [quote]So, Galileo was wrong and the sun circles the earth as in Joshua?[/quote]

Galileo was right and so was the account in Joshua.

@redredred

Couldn't that just represent that earth and son had stopped moving in relation to one another? What about joshua tells us that the sun is orbiting the earth?

@GodSpeed63 @Pikachu In Joshua it says the sun stood still in the sky during a battle. The sun does not move through the sky; the earth turns on its axis. The story in Joshua is factually and scientifically wrong.

This is when believers tell me its figurative speech but then later maintain the the days of creation were actual 24 hour days because the bible is inerrant. We can later discuss bats being birds and four-legged winged things after we sort out the two, conflicting Eve origin stories.

@redredred

Well exactly. That's the passage i was thinking of.
It says the sun stood still in the sky. Perhaps in the same way we say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west when we know it is actually the earth rotating.

So the sun could stand still in the sky and that doesn't mean the sun stopped orbiting the earth but that the earth stopped orbiting the sun.

Just seems like a weak example to me. There are definitely better examples of the bible contradicting science.

@Pikachu First of all, its not the earths orbit around the sun, its the earths rotation on its axis. Second, whenever a fundamentalist gets called in one of these its considered "just a figure of speech" but then, in every other instance its "the inerrant word of god". It cant be both.

@redredred

[quote] its the earths rotation on its axis.[/quote]

lol pedant. You'll notice that he first time i described the movement, i did indeed specify the earth's rotation.
Glad to see you're not interested in being petty😏

[quote] It cant be both.[/quote]

Sorry, this is still a very weak example. Even a bible literalist who agrees that the sun stopped in the sky would not be troubled by this argument.
You have NO basis to argue that what is meant was that the sun stopped in the sky as it orbited the earth rather than that the sun stopped in the sky because the earth stopped rotating.
If you disagree then make that case now.
I think you will necessarily back down from that challenge.

I dont need to make any case, my words speak for themselves. Get your mommy to read them to you if you dont understand.

And pointing out the difference between a day and a year is not pedantic if the conversation includes the views of morons who take the days of (supposed) creation as literal 24 hour days. Try to keep up.@Pikachu

@redredred

[quote]I dont need to make any case, my words speak for themselves.[/quote]

😒

I'm going to let you have a second pass at that because you just said you don't have to make a case to demonstrate the validity of your claim because your claim speaks for itself....
You're...satisfied with that *ahem* argument?
If so then so be it.
If not then make your case why we should consider that passage to be an unequivocal proclamation that the sun orbits the earth.
What'll it be?
Are you going to save face or are you going to show some intellectual honesty?🙂

[quote]pointing out the difference between a day and a year is not pedantic[/quote]

lol don't play, son.
I first described the relationship as one of [i]rotation[/i] (which you ignored) and you decided it was necessary to explain that which was already evidently apparent to me even though i misspoke in the second instance.
You understood perfectly the meaning of my point but you wanted to put on airs of superiority.
You were being a pedant.
End of story.

So mr. pigeon, let's get back to whether or not you're going to actually make an argument in favour of your interpretation or whether you'll just scatter the pieces and shit on the board...