From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/14/2025 7:04 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:18:28 -0600, RonO    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/13/2025 11:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 10:15:16 -0600, RonO    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> The Bible is just wrong about a lot of things.   
   >>>   
   >>> No it's not - it's people who read the Bible wrong.   
   >>>   
   >> That is the lie people have told for centuries.   
   >   
   > No, it's not a lie - yet again you show your lack of knowledge of   
   > Christian religious belief.   
      
   It has been the lie used as an excuse for centuries.  There is a very   
   good reason why most competent individuals can "interpret" the Bible   
   incorrectly.  It is because the Bible is just wrong about a lot of things.   
      
   The authors of the text explained things as they understood them, but   
   their understanding was not correct.  The Hebrew adopted a cosmology   
   that they got from their neighbors that had been civlilized for a longer   
   period of time.  Even if we wrote the Bible today the Top Six should   
   tell anyone that we still have a chance of getting things wrong about   
   the creation.   
      
   Even the Biologos creationists claim that they believe that the Bible is   
   the inspired word of God, and some of them are still trying to fit what   
   is in the Bible into this reality even as they know that it is factually   
   wrong.   
      
   It is obvious that the correct way to interpret the Bible with respect   
   to nature (the creation) is to disregard everything about nature written   
   in the Bible and figure out what the creation actually is independent of   
   what is written in the Bible.   
      
   We do not live on a flat earth with a firmament above us that some god   
   has to open up to let it rain.  The earth is not just a few thousand   
   years old, and we do not live in a geocentric universe.  There is no   
   reason to think that the Bible should be used to tell us much about   
   nature after those failures, and yet there were still day for age old   
   earth creationists that wanted the 6 days of creation to be interpreted   
   as periods of time, but that has also failed.  Creationists should have   
   learned from their past mistakes and given up on using the Bible as a   
   science textbook by now.   
      
   >   
   >> It is true in the sense   
   >> that the literal meaning has to have been metaphorical (because it is   
   >> literally wrong), but people have always misinterpreted the metaphor.   
   >>   
   >> It has always been best to give up on any Biblical interpretation for   
   >> what we could figure out for ourselves.  Always, with no exceptions when   
   >> it comes to conflicts with what we understand about nature.  The early   
   >> church was already doing that long before the beliefs of the church   
   >> fathers was used to make heliocentrism into a formal heresy (you know   
   >> this to be true).   
   >   
   > No, it's most certainly not true. heliocentrism was *never* a heresy -   
   > you clearly don't even understand what the term "formal heresy" means.   
   > You have been told that time and time again but you reckon you know   
   > better than the Catholic Church itself and the independent scholars   
   > who have studied the affair. When something is pointed out wrong and   
   > you persist with it, you are behaving just like the ID'ers and   
   > Creationists that you castigate.   
      
   You know for a fact that heliocentrism was considered to be a formal   
   heresy when Galileo faced the charge.  Even the anti geocentric   
   catholics agreed that it was a formal heresy when Galileo was first   
   brought in by the inquisition.  The anti-geocentrics just wanted it not   
   to be called a formal heresy when the Pope got involved.  I don't know   
   why you can still lie about this junk, when your own trusted catholic   
   source called it a heresy.  They only put up the same excuse as the anti   
   geocentric faction that the Inquisitions charge of formal heresy was not   
   adopted by the court when Galileo faced the charge a second time.  They   
   noted that it was only called a heresy in the sentencing, and not a   
   formal heresy, but that excuse falls apart when they claim that the   
   sentencing was poorly written and that Galileo was really guilty of   
   breaking his oath to the previous Inquisition and that oath regarded the   
   formal heresy charge.   
      
   Deal with reality.  There is no reason to keep lying about geocentrism   
   because the church was always wrong about it.  Both sides of the current   
   geocentric ongoing Catholic internal disagreement admit that the   
   Inquisition made heliocentrism a formal heresy because of what the   
   church fathers believed.  Heliocentrism was not a formal heresy until   
   the beliefs of the church fathers was deemed canon and inerrant, and   
   they were all supposed to have been geocentrists.   
      
   >   
   >> They were all probably young earth geocentric   
   >> creationists, but likely none of them would have held those views if   
   >> they had entered the church today.  I've seen some seen some claims that   
   >> some of the church fathers may have been a type of old earth   
   >> creationists, due to some Greek belief in an eternal earth.  Yet, we   
   >> still had Bishop Ussher's calculation that Earth's birthday was October   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)