And the Spirit & the bride say, come.... Reveaaltion 22:17

And the Spirit & the bride say, come.... Reveaaltion 22:17
And the Spirit & the bride say, come...Revelation 22:17 - May We One Day Bow Down In The DUST At HIS FEET ...... {click on blog TITLE at top to refresh page}

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Creation Moment 5/8/2017 - Psalm 93:1

"In 1633, Galileo Galilei faced hostile inquisitors who opposed his astronomical discoveries. Galileo claimed that Earth moves around the sun while the sun stays stationary, which was opposite to what Galileo’s church taught. This confrontation is often labeled as a “religion versus science” trial because it involved a disagreement about the meaning of Psalm 93:1:
The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved.
The latter part of Psalm 93:1 allegedly clashed with Galileo’s analysis of our solar system. His telescopic measurements of movements in the heavens (i.e., sun, moon, planets, etc.) proved that Earth orbited the “stationary” sun, not vice versa. However, Roman Catholic interpretations of Scripture at the time disagreed with Galileo’s astronomical analysis, claiming the opposite was true. Actually, both sides were partly wrong because both sides relied on errors.
  1. Both the sun and Earth are moving in very predictable orbits (and thus neither is absolutely stationary), yet when described contextually both are moving in relation to one another—and to the Milky Way galaxy, as well. Plus, all motion must be described with respect to a frame of reference, so it’s most practical for observers to use their own positions as locational indices.

  2. The Hebrew phrase translated “it cannot be moved” in Psalm 93:1 means that Earth cannot be yanked away (i.e., pulled off course) from its divinely prescribed and established program of movements—as opposed to describing a state of absolute motionlessness.
The lesson? When religion clashes with science, expect to see examples of sloppy religion in the
form of inaccurate Bible interpretations, or sloppy science as evidenced in inaccurate scientific observations and/or analysis, or both.
This is nothing new. During the heyday of the so-called Enlightenment (1700s–1800s), a fad called deism flourished. Deism was, and still is, a “free thinking”-dominated theism that exalts human reason (ignoring how fallen reason is) while keeping the Bible closed whenever science is discussed. Prioritizing popularity with secular culture, deists strive to retain some Christianity. But this unbalanced compromise over-tips the boat, eventually sinking the ship under an ocean of self-contradictions.
Accordingly, deism artificially cherry-picks fashionable Bible teachings while ignoring and discarding others that are undesirable or inconvenient. Modern-day deists, such as Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, often react to apparent “religion versus science” conflicts by siding with science over what the Bible teaches. Consequently, to favor science over Scripture, deists employ straw-man caricatures of biblical truth. Jonathan Sarfati highlights the approach taken by ID leader Dr. William Dembski.
Dembski justifies his Scriptura sub scientia approach (i.e., Scripture [ranked] under science) by raising the tired old canard about geocentrism….
WD: Yet, during that time [of Galileo’s trial for teaching heretical science], church teaching also held that the earth was stationary.
Unfortunately, this [ecclesiastical error] is because they kowtowed to the prevailing Aristotelian science of the day, which included the Ptolemaic cosmology….
WD: Psalm 93 [verse 1] states that the earth is established forever and cannot be moved…. A literal interpretation of Psalm 93 seems to require geocentrism.
William Dembski’s misunderstanding of Psalm 93:1 shows his failure to properly analyze the Hebrew philology. Similar approaches are taken by others who place a reliance on science over the truth of Scripture. Making the assumption that the Bible is not to be trusted in matters of science will always lead to error." ICR