What Is The Biblical View of the Cosmos? ft. Dr. John Hilber
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- For full interview: • Linguistic Bible Exper...
More from the channel:
Genesis 1:1 Correctly Translated (“When God began to create”)
• Genesis 1:1 Correctly ...
John Walton Puts Genesis 1 in Context
• Bible Scholar Puts Gen...
Were Adam and Eve Historical?
• Were Adam and Eve Hist...
What is the meaning of “Day” in Genesis 1?
• Linguist Explains How ...
▬ Contents of this Video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Intro
To listen on...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Anchor by Spotify: spotifyanchor-...
Amazon Music: music.amazon.c...
Castbox: castbox.fm/cha...
IHeartRadio: www.iheart.com...
Support is greatly appreciated!
patreon.com/us...
As a physicist, I find it cringe when people, in an attempt to show their competence, say things like "it's scientifically wrong to say that the sun rises or sets" or "The sun does not revolve around the earth". The fact is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the sun revolves around the earth. We are perfectly at liberty to choose our frame of reference as we wish, and if someone wants to transform their equations into a rotating frame of reference, they are welcome to do it. It will be mathematically cumbersome, but not wrong. A statement in Ecclesiastes about the motion of the sun needs no defending because the objection that the statement is wrong doesn't even get off the ground.
That would be the Tycho Brahe's solar system.
Forgive me but I’m not a physicist and therefore am having a hard time understanding. A few questions to hopefully help me understand: Are you saying that the sun does revolve around the earth from a specific frame of reference? Why would changing the frame of reference change whether it would be correct to scientifically say the sun revolves around the earth? When someone in the ancient world said “the sun is rising”, is it not implied that they thought the earth was staying still while the sun was moving across the sky? In other words, do the words on the page not carry additional meaning given their context?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou The words on the page may carry all sorts of meanings, given their context. I'm only saying that in physics there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a body-fitted frame of reference (e.g. one attached to the globe or one attached to a particular person standing on the globe). There is nothing wrong with saying that you revolve around me if I decide to start spinning. All the mathematics can be transformed into such a rotating frame.
If someone says "technically, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth", they are just wrong, because technically, it all depends on the choice of the frame of reference.
Fantastic video... I liked the last word he said: it seems scripture favours efficiency in communication instead of literal accuracy in communication
Haha that’s awesome. Good catch
Hey, I noticed you uploaded a new episode on the podcast, but there is a mistake: you uploaded the Matthew Halsted-interview, but titled it with Paul Overland
Haha uh oh
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Mistakes happen, but I wanted to tell you!
I like listening to your stuff on Apple Podcasts. Why are only some of your videos uploaded there?
I just haven’t uploaded them all yet on there. I’m working on it. Sorry about that!
There is stuff on the podcast that isn't on UA-cam yet as well. I recall there is an interview on church-discipline and how not to do it.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Not related to the podcast, but I'm curious if you could try to hold a public with your current interviews (Ross, Overland, Stökl), where people could vote which should come next? Trying to see what the audience might be interested in?
Good to have a shoutout to King Etana! The scholar Jamie Novotny produced a solid edition of the myth about 20 years ago through the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project in Helsinki, and is also on his Academia-page to read for free. Sadly, it only contains the cuneiform-signs and Akkadian transliteration, but no English translation. The later publications of the Corpus Project usually include an English, French or German translation of the text though.
Aw well that’s a shame
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou But one can seen in it how proper transliteration and epigraphy is done. Take a note, Dr. Stripling!
The realm of the dead or the underworld within the OT and ANE is something you haven't really explored yet on this channel, right? I know Dr. Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, wife of Dr. Mark S. Smith, has written some stuff on Israelite and Ugaritic burial practices and believes in the afterlife.
Hello! May I ask are you a christian? I'm Just curious as you seem informed on academic studies and dont see many people of faith on youtube
@@gg2008yayo Agnostic
@@js1423 Thanks for the reply!
God “accommodated” Himself to ancient understandings?
Talk about opening a can of worms! If biblical authors assumed a flat earth, one must at least consider what additional common assumptions of Israelite writers of the OT may be “accommodations” to ancient Near Eastern ideas, ideas just as questionable as the ancient assumption of a flat earth. For instance what about the widespread practice of believing kings were divinely appointed and nations were divinely led? What about the notion that laws were divinely inspired? (The laws of Hammurabi among other ancient codes, were claimed to have been inspired by a high god and pre-date the earliest suggested dates for the existence of Moses and the story about Moses receiving laws from God.) The existence of prophets and prophecies? The Bible also features a famous patriarch who practiced cup divination. And what about the practice of sacrificing animals? Or the necessity of spilling blood? The practice of circumcision was also not unique to the Hebrews. Having and supporting a priesthood? Building temples? Even a temple that faces east with increasing degrees of holiness in different sections? Common back then. How about Yahweh being jealous, angry,, and even repents, and grows tired of repenting of past actions, and who was “soothed” by the “aroma" of burnt animals? Maybe all such ideas and practices were accommodations? Even when God instructed how he wanted his temple built, an Egyptian king was also told by a high god how to build that god’s temple, and the Egyptian story is older than the biblical one.
Yes to pretty much all of those 😊
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou My point was that accommodationist explanations are invented by people attempting to defend their belief that the Bible is "inspired," filled with "divine authority," when in fact that Bible isn't any more "inspired" than most of the other stuff humans believed in the ancient world. See "The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and the Wealth of Modern Knowledge/Information -- Where Do We Get Our Answers From Today? What Expands Our Minds the Most Today?" edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-cultural-divide-between-ancient.html
You could do a show about that instead of pandering to "accommodationists." Heck, maybe Jesus was speaking about punishments in the afterlife and a soon coming worldwide judgment because God was "accommodating" his speech to what people understood back then? On the other hand, why not bite the bullet and admit Jesus was a first century failed apocalyptic prophet?
@@edwardtbabinski Jesus isnt a failed prophet he is the most know name on earth.