Avatar of John

Credo of the Biblical Astronomer

1 rating, 1 vote1 rating, 1 vote (+1 rating, 1 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

January 25, 2013 in Science

by

The Following Credo Wasn’t Written By Me…..I’m just posting it and am in agreement with it.

 

The Biblical Astronomer was originally founded in 1971 as the Tychonian Society, on the premise that the only absolutely trustworthy information about the origin and purpose of all that exists and happens is given by God, our Creator and Redeemer, in his infallible, preserved word, the Holy Bible, commonly called the King James Bible. All scientific endeavor which does not accept this revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject as already condemned in its unfounded first assumptions.

 

We believe that the creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years. We maintain that the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to the throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is absolutely at rest in the universe.

 

We affirm that no man is righteous and so all are in need of salvation, which is the free gift of God, given by the grace of God, and not to be obtained through any merit or works of our own. We affirm that salvation is available only through faith in the shed blood and finished work of our risen LORD and savior, Jesus Christ.

Lastly, the reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astronomy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most important, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now resulting in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existentialism is preaching a life that is really meaningless.

 

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.Isaiah 8:20

  

www.geocentricity.com


Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

13 responses to Credo of the Biblical Astronomer

  1. As an amateur astronomer and astrophotographer, I know a few things about the universe that I’ve personally seen that I know to be true. I know Jupiter is round, that it has moons that orbit it and it is in essence just a smaller version of the entire solar system. There’s no doubt in my mind. The photographic and visual evidence cannot be denied.

    I believe in the Bible. I believe the creation story written in it to be one of the greatest stories ever printed. But, I stop short at too literal of an interpretation and lean more towards a metaphorical interpretation, since it is demonstrated that metaphor is used extensively in the Bible. probably in almost all parts of it.

    In fact, I believe the creation story days are a metaphorical device that probably represents several things all at once in addition to representing a certain interval of time. If someone wanted to express complicated ideas so that knowledge could be preserved and relayed down through the ages, this metaphorical, multi-meaning approach would be the best to use.

    If you would like to explore these ideas further, I wrote this artcle that explains what I think the days mean and how it all ties together. Check it out, if you like.

  2. “We believe that the creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years. We maintain that the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to the throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is absolutely at rest in the universe.”

    The entire Bible is not literal and wasn’t meant to be a science book. There is a substantial amount of evidence that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old and God’s creation in the universe is ongoing. Just because He commanded it to be doesn’t mean it didn’t take time. I’m a Christian and understand astronomy. Why do you think God created those other planets in our solar system? Do you all limit your science to only biblical references? The Bible is an enlightening Holy book but science more relates to the human observation of nature therefore what God has made.

    • “The entire Bible is not literal and wasn’t meant to be a science book”
      > I totally agree with this statement. However, I believe we need to distinguish between what modern people consider literal from what Hebrew people considered literal. For us the earth is literally a globe yet to the ancient Hebrew the earth is literally a flat disk (refer to the bible itself for evidence of this). When we read the word earth in the Bible we need to abandon our literal interpretation of the word for the Hebrews literal interpretation. They literally mean a flat disk and that’s how we should read it if we want to uphold “literallism”.

      • There’s a few instances where it seemed the Bible refereed to Earth as round. The 24 hour day creation interpretation bothers me though because a Earth duration of a day did not exist until this planet begun spinning. Who knows what a “day” is to God.

        It’s ridiculous for people to assume the Bible all literal because even Jesus taught in parables.

        • I address the 6 days of Genesis in an article aptly titled. They are not literal days because the way we think of days has changed since the days of the Oral Histories in Genesis. The 6 days are not about the “creation” of stuff in a scientifically sequential order. Genesis is about God addressing the dysfunction of tohu and bohu, formlessness and emptiness, by giving form to the cosmos through separation in day 1,2 and 3 and by filling the form in day 4,5, and 6. Please conciser the evidence I have presented in my articles; I hope you will find my explanation more elegant and logical than creationism has been able to do in centuries of pseudoscience and ignorant exegesis.

    • Whether the Bible speaks literally at times, or figuratively, or symbolically, it is all legitimately true and with no part or use of speech minimized or taken as less than true or reliable. Its appeal is to be adhered to more so than science. Where the two conflict, the Bible is to be taken as the standard of appeal because its God’s Word. This is an uncompromising position for a Christian and heartily understood from the overwhelming majority of the Church throughout the ages.

      • “Where the two conflict, the Bible is to be taken as the standard of appeal because its God’s Word”

        > What you fail to realize is that biblical interpretation requires a field of science, specifically the discipline of exegesis in the broader discipline of theology. “God’s Word” and the many theological interpretations of the bible come as a result of biblical interpretation of Hebrew into English. Much is lost in translation. Not only is it difficult to interpret a logographic language like Hebrew into an analytic language like English, it is difficult to appreciate the cosmological and ontological differences of a culture that existed millenniums ago. If you fail to see theology as a discipline of science then perhaps you take for granted the doctrines and theologies that you enjoy and all of the research that is involved in interpreting the ancient writings.

        Only when one accounts for the divergence of the Hebrew worldview as described in Genesis will they find that modern contemporary science and general Christian theology agree. If you do not account for this variable, one is likely to project their modern worldview onto scripture which leads to non-contemporary science as we find in creationism: what many would consider to be no science at all (psudoscience).

        Creationism projects a modern paradigm onto ancient writings and assume (contrary to the evidence) that the ancient Hebrews must have thought about existance and the cosmos the same way we do. creationists project our modern experience, our hermeneutics, and our cosmology onto the text and try to make the text conform to our worldview. This is back asswards. True exegesis considers the thought system and worldview of the writers and allows ones theology to be affected accordingly. If it can be demonstrated that the Hebrew people entertained a different cosmology than we do, surely this should affect our exegesis and consequently our theology. I have presented evidence that the bible gives us a tremendous glimpse into ancient Hebrew cosmology, how alike it is with the cosmology of other Mesopotamian culters and how different these cosmoligies are from our own. Why anybody interested in exegesis would ignore the anthropology of the writers they are studying in order to uphold their conventional theologies is beyond me. Its dogma, plain and simple. Peace.

        • You wrongly assume my supposed failure to realize the need for exegesis when I have surely commented on your compromise of it in earlier posts. Your mixture of words such as “millenniums” in context of our dispute about cosmology, etc. reveals either your confusion or deliberate denial of the truths of Scripture regarding creation. You don’t take into account the grammatical considerations of language, and you even deny definitions of words like “bara”, “yatsa”, etc. in order to conveniently fit into your agenda. You are the one committing “isegesis” rather than “exegeis.” And it develops into your unorthodox theological views, or maybe I should say your skewed views especially regarding creation. The Hebrew worldview is the same one Moses had when wrote the first five books of the OT, it is the same one that the OT people of God had, as well as the NT church had throughout history, all of which adhered to a 6 day creationist view. You have been given the Scriptural evidence and explanation for the creationist position, you simply reject it in commitment to your agenda. You would probably be good at teaching a comparative religion class. Whereas your doctrine on Christianity is thoroughly unsound.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.