DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses

[@visitor5009]

It is as simple as that. No contradictions and no conflicts between Scripture and Science. They actually go hand in hand. God bless.

[@thescoobymike]

ah yes, no contradictions. Now excuse me, Im flying up to the FIRMAMENT right now

[@elobservadorobservante1605]

@CODA834 God is timeless and the creation was gradual. By creating the components life is made of he created life, as St. Augustine said. "By creating the acorn, God created the oak"

[@Filip_M.]

@@thescoobymike That's the line between the atmosphere and space

[@Mkvine]

A Sungenis vs Akin debate would be epic

[@Urbanity_Kludge]

Wow, I haven't thought about him for a long time. Is he still out there preaching? I thought he was sick and died.

[@Mkvine]

@@Urbanity_Kludge Sungenis you mean? Nope, he’s still debating. He had a couple of debates earlier this year and has a live KZbin show every Wednesday.

[@dannyb1379]

@@Urbanity_Kludge He has a livestream where he answers apologetics/theology/science questions every week on Wednesdays.

[@NUKE.2024]

awesome, I learned about the 'Barycenter' of the universe from the Catholic Answers channel.

[@DrEMichaelJones]

Jimmy should try to debate Robert Sungenis on this.

[@biblikal_org]

True!

[@littleblue995]

Absolutely!

[@stephenjohnson7915]

Why?

[@DrEMichaelJones]

@@stephenjohnson7915 look him up

[@edukaeshn]

Because Akin denies science.

[@jacobmelanson2001]

Ave Christus Rex! 👑 ✝️

[@t.d6379]

Which means? Thanks.

[@jacobmelanson2001]

@@t.d6379 It is Latin for, 'Hail Christ the King!'

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

Amen! Amen! Amen!

[@JohnEButton]

Please debate Dr Robert sungenis

[@snokehusk223]

Dr. Robert Sungenis. Debate him Jimmy. He is up for it.

[@GR65330]

I always saw the scriptures as an account of Salvation History and was never meant to be a science book. Anyone who uses the bible as a book of science is bound to run into problems.

[@johnmccrossan9376]

Absolutely! Anybody who tries to read poetry as a textbook needs to reconsider their perspective.

[@daveg4963]

Then the scriptures shouldn't be talking about the creation of the earth. That's scientific.

[@elobservadorobservante1605]

@@daveg4963 its a poetic interpretation of what science knew about the creation of the earth at the time. The message is that God created everything, and that humans are guilty of sin so God had to sacrifice for us so we could be saved.

[@daveg4963]

@@elobservadorobservante1605 but it's not scientifically correct. It's an error because people wrote the scriptures and they thought the world was flat or stationary.

[@mariolacaio12]

Great work Jimmy

[@hglundahl]

4:34 If it's actually Earth that moves the other way around its axis, the Sun is less amazing and more inert. So, if Heliocentrism is true, the praise is actually at least somewhat misplaced.

[@teoohana3015]

I loved the book and it continually teaches me. I think the Holy spirit wrote that book with you!

[@mitchtupelo76]

Can the natural world (being a creation of God) be a guide for interpretation of scripture in other areas? I've heard similar arguments for a local flood.

[@ochem123]

"On Adar 11, 5540 Anno Mundi (A.M.) (Wednesday, February 24, 1616 A.D.), the consultants [Catholic Magisterium] unanimously reported the assessment that heliocentrism was philosophically (i.e., scientifically) false and theologically heretical or at least erroneous. "The following day, the Inquisition, presided by Pope St. Paul V, considered the case. Although it did not endorse the heresy recommendation, it accepted the judgments of scientific falsity and theological error, and decided to prohibit the theory. "Thus, on Adar 13, 5540 A.M. (Friday, February 26, 1616 A.D.) the Inquisition’s most authoritative cardinal, St. Robert Bellarmine (5467-5546 A.M. / 1542-1621 A.D.), met with Galileo in private and gave him the following warning: the Church was going to declare the idea of the earth’s motion false and contrary to Scripture, and so this theory could not be held or defended. Galileo agreed to comply." ♥️

[@elobservadorobservante1605]

Galileo had not enough evidence to back his claims at the time, and the church had plenty of scientific data on their side, remember that no one had been into space back then. However, it can be argued that Galileo's lack of evidence was because he was not allowed access to Copernicus works by the church. Also, Galileo was forgiven by pope John Paul II in 1992, nearly 400 years too late but better late than never.

[@hglundahl]

4:49 Basing his praise on his experience involves taking his experience at face value. Being a Heliocentric means imagining he was wrong in so doing. Heliocentrism is the less Empirical view.

[@somebody4061]

What if you include the rest of the Universe in the center of mass calculation? Is it possible that the Earth could indeed be at rest?

[@DrEMichaelJones]

Yes, Edwin Hubble proved this.

[@Rastaboulotte]

@@DrEMichaelJones Can you share a link about this? I'm curious to read about it! Thank you!

[@snokehusk223]

​@@Rastaboulottedr. Robert Sungenis pointed this out in his youtube videos

[@DrEMichaelJones]

@@snokehusk223 Sungenis talked about it on a channel called WitsitGetsIt last week

[@7thavedrycleaners178]

​@@DrEMichaelJonesthey call witsit dimwit. Please refer to a reputable source for information.

[@hglundahl]

6:53 _Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina_ is indeed probably from 1615. It is _also_ by Galileo. By 1615, Baronius was already dead since 8 years ago, before the Galileo controversy. He died in 1607. Historical accuracy is not your forte.

[@hglundahl]

6:50 I very highly doubt you can trace that quote back to Baronius. I think the real man behind the quote is Galileo, in his letter to Grand Duchess Christina. Pius XII did not condemn political Christianity in Mit brennender Sorge. Pius XI in Mit brennender Sorge condemned _un-Christian_ practises. And total rebooting of the content of religious terminology, way beyond just "political Christianity" ... that it was Cardinal Pacelli who penned it doesn't mean it was not Pius XI who did the condemnations, as he was still alive and still Pope. Equally, you seem happy to misquote Galileo as Baronius.

[@hglundahl]

3:49 No, he is not describing _his amazement at_ the world God has made, he is conveying it by describing sth else, namely _the world that God has made_ ... if he's incorrect, that's as bad as if St. Paul in Romans 1, verses 19 and 20 is wrong about what the world actually shows. There is a good reason to take that too as a geocentric text. You see, the flagellum of bacteria and the complexity of DNA definitely _do_ show what St. Paul speaks of sth showing, but as they are very recent discoveries and not available in St. Paul's time, they do not fulfil the criterium of *from the creation of the world* -- Geocentrism, if we take the prima facie view of day and night, and of seasons, actually does fulfil that. Riccioli identified it as Prima Via, except he rejected it, since he attributed the "daily motion" to a harmony between "daily motionS" of angels moving celestial bodies through empty space coordinates. Even if angels moving Sun around Earth in 24 h and Moon around Earth in 24:55 hours were true, rather than them going opposite way along the Zodiac while God Himself moves the totality, their harmony given the multiplicity of celestial bodies each with its own mover would require a unity of command.

[@hglundahl]

5:19 "Phenomenological language" is a term that: a) usually leaves understood that the reality differs from the phenomenon, as Heliocentrics think Geocentric descriptions do; b) would for that reason only apply to human descriptions, not to divine commands, including what God makes a miracle maker say at the doing of a miracle. I'm not asking you to look at Joshua 10:13 which in human terms describes what happened. I'm asking you to look at Joshua 10:12, where Joshua _on God's behalf_ adresses what needs to miraculously behave differently. Words directly inspired by the Creator and Lord of all the things involved. If God had "known" it is really Earth that turns around itself, Joshua would either not have worded God's command that way, but adressed Earth instead, or he would not have been given the miracle. Otherwise, the miracles of Joshua and later Isaias would _stand alone_ in being miracles adressed to totally different beings than the ones really involved in it.

[@josephreagan9545]

As far as I understand, the Bible is the story of God's relationship with humanity and it is many different books written in different genres according to the understanding of the people at the time. It is not meant to be a science book nor be taken literally in all places. The church has authority in faith and morals not in science (although it does have authority in teaching the morality of how science is applied.)

[@junacebedo888]

The enemy of science is art not religion. Science deals with logic and facts. Art is about illusion and inspiration. Example I left my heart in San Francisco song. - is this scientific?

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

There is no firmament in the sky (Genesis 1:6-8). Killing doves is not part of childbirth (Luke 2:22-24) There is nothing above the clouds except empty freezing space (Acts 1:9 coupled with all the other NT verses of God's throne being above the clouds) The New Testament is filled with mythology, legend and scientific errors a ninth grader would recognize.

[@dr.tafazzi]

Are you larping or are you seriously that dumb?

[@Pukhelykopter]

Mr. Akin… thx for this video. But please - and it would actually be a good work against division and confusion - have a debate with Dr. Robert Sungenis. You, at Catholic Answers, are seriously losing credibility when you refuse to debate Dr. Sungenis and I don‘t see how that‘s a good thing!Thx…

[@ironymatt]

A debate would be fine, but Jimmy Akin's credibility doesn't depend on Dr Sungenis

[@Pukhelykopter]

@@ironymatt Refusing to debate will hurt anyone‘s credibility. If you are in the public forum and if you call yourself „Catholic Answers“, you better agree to debate an opponent within the same church on a very important topic! Otherwise, you absolutely do lose credibility! (in my humble opinion) and as said before: it would be a good thing for all catholics!

[@ironymatt]

@@Pukhelykopter that depends on what the debate is about. Geocentricism isn't an article of faith in the Catholic Church, so why would it be encumbent upon CA to take a position on it? Interesting topic? Sure, why not. Very important? Maybe to some individuals, but it's certainly not a component of my day-to-day life, nor is it in any way a requirement for adherence to the Gospel. And again, why would Jimmy's credibility depend on his ability to debate Sungenis about this? Where does Jimmy Akin ever claim to be an expert on the subject? That's the only way his credibility would be impacted by such an exchange. I'm actually not very knowledgeable about Dr Sungenis beyond the fact that he's known for advocating geocentrism, nor was I aware of any correspondence between him and Jimmy about a debate. Could you provide a link concerning his supposed refusal to debate, because I'm a little skeptical that it's a case of Akin trying to avoid such an event in order to protect his "credibility".

[@thescoobymike]

Next episode Jimmy will say “the Bible actually has no reference to the firmament at all”

[@7thavedrycleaners178]

Maybe in his next episode he'll walk you through the origin of the word and what it actually means. Plus the ancient translation of the word and it's use on Scripture. The lazy nature of religious fundamentalists knows no bounds. Jesus was crystal clear about selling your stuff in giving to the poor maybe we should all worry more about that

[@snokehusk223]

It' better to be made fun of modern scientists that sre usually wrong on supernatural that a low IQ person knows exist than by Church Fathers.

[@biblikal_org]

To pick this verse is basically a strawman. Geocentrists use much more sophisticated verses. For example, the argument of Cardinal Bellarmin in Joshua where the sun AND the moon stood still. Also it is quite naive to say that bible doesn't want to give us a scientific account. Yes, that's true on the surface. But if certain bible truth have direct implications on the scientific level, then these are true as well. Basically every miracle in the Bible has implications. That's why so many scientists reject miracles. A miracle says on the one hand that the scientific norm was suspended for a while and on the other hand it says that scientifically speaking dead people don't rise, otherwise the sign character of the miracle is gone. So, when the Bible talks about creation or geocentrism, we should consider it, although it's not the main intent of the Bible. We also don't reject the bodily resurrection only because biology teaches us that a corpus will decay. Why do an exception for the bodily resurrection but not for geocentrism although Joshua's implications are quite strong?

[@GustavoAndresHerrera]

I don't think the point here is to argue what contribution can the Bible make at a scientific level. The point is "do not take a poem literally, as if it were a scientific text". Poems are trying to convey a different type of truth (if I say that "my heart is broken", I probably don't need a cardiologist, I need a hug). Moreover, it all depends of what "science" you're considering. The Bible contributes A LOT to the historical and archeological sciences! But not so much to astronomy or medicine. Also, only "modern" and materialist scientist reject miracles.

[@DRWH044]

He is saying that we should be looking at the genre of the book as well as the intent of the writer. The accounts of the resurrection are in the gospels which are historical books and the intent is to spread the good news of the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins. As a counter example, the passage he cited is in Psalms, a poetic book with the intent of praising God.

[@biblikal_org]

Joshua is a historical book and not poetic. And Joshuas report makes only sense in a geocentric model since the moon stood still. Cardinal Bellarmin pointed that out to Galileo@@DRWH044

[@annezadra7871]

Cy you are so thin in this picture!

[@edukaeshn]

Did he wear the white coat to look more scientificky? I can't take Jimmy Akin seriously, nor Catholic Answers for featuring him.

[@superduck6456]

That’s just his style. He wears white all the time.

[@edukaeshn]

@@superduck6456 uh-huuh

[@winniethedictator2777]

geocentric model is correct - it has never been disproven

[@lothara.schmal5092]

It doesn't make any sense either way, neither model is scientific, there is no objective center/pov regarding astronomy

[@7thavedrycleaners178]

@@lothara.schmal5092 it makes plenty of sense even the ancient Egyptians knew we revolve around the sun

[@lothara.schmal5092]

@@7thavedrycleaners178 The ancient Egyptians thought people with animal heads ruled the laws of nature, honestly this is physics 101, there is no objective frame of reference in the universe the best example I think is the person in the train, for them, when they drop a ball, the ball has fallen directly into the ground, if we were to take a perspective from outside the train however, the ball both fell and went to the side at the same speed of the train, which one is right? Both. From Earth's perspective the sun moves around it, from the sun's perspective it's the inverse

[@7thavedrycleaners178]

Try that ball experiment with a helium balloon. From the perspective of fact the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough people and instruments that have been to space to measure it. Unless they're all lying

[@chad_hominem]

Agreed. It corresponds to our direct lived experience and what we can actually verify empirically, and imo actually validates the true literal historicity of Scripture right to Genesis 1. I also do not think Sungenis holds to the correct model of geocentrism.

[@donald2993]

I don't believe the earth moves i believe the sun and moon move