Saturday, March 03, 2007

Lunar Eclipse

Today, March 3, 2007, is scheduled to include a total lunar eclipse. Today the earth’s moon will pass through the earth’s shadow and the sun’s rays will be blotted out from the surface of the earth’s moon. Yet the sun’s glow will still reach the moon so that it glows a deep red rather than the normal white glow to which we are accustomed. The rays of light from the sun are refracted by the earth’s atmosphere so that some of the light coming from the sun’s glow “bend” around the earth and still reach the moon. More information about this is available at Lunar Eclipse.

Something that you may have noticed in the above paragraph is my statement that this eclipse is scheduled for today. From the article at NASA’s web site the following is quoted:
According to expert Fred Espenak of NASA/GSFC, "during the five millennium period from 2000BC through 3000 AD, there are 7,718 eclipses of the Moon (including both partial and total). There are anywhere from 0 to 3 lunar eclipses (including partial and total) each year. The last time that three total lunar eclipses occurred in one calendar year was in 1982. Partial eclipses slightly outnumber total eclipses by 7 to 6."

The ability to forecast lunar views and eclipses is not new to our “space-age” technology. In fact, Moses recorded this in the beginning, i.e., Genesis:
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.     (Gen 1:14-19)

Men have looked up to the firmament ever since for understanding of the seasons and activities of the planet. Men have lived their lives ever since the sixth day, observing the heavenly schedule that was established on the fourth day, planning the planting of their crops and forecasting the times by this heavenly schedule. One group of scholars traveled a very long distance based upon their observation of the firmament and the appearance of a very unusual star. They followed the star that appeared in the east to the home of the one they had been seeking, the one whom they believed to be the Master of the stars and the King of the Jews. Following this star led them to the very house where the star Master was abiding. Talk about accurate navigation calculations based upon the observations of the firmament!

A Georgia Representative, Ben Bridges, recently was in the news because of a memo that was circulated in his name. A legislator in the state of Texas received the memo and began circulating it further. The point of the matter was the issue of why a more recent theory of the universe’s functioning is taught as fact in opposition to the “theory” that has existed since before Moses wrote the first books of the Bible. The issue at hand is the fact that a heliocentric universe is taught in opposition to a geocentric universe, based purely upon speculative theory. What made this such an issue for the news media was that the heliocentric theory was exposed as having its basis in a religion. Thus all the claims of the heliocentric theory (and its complementary religious theory: Evolution) to be purely “scientific” are really deceptive claims meant to seduce society into accepting these two theories as factual.

At his web site, Marshall Hall sets forth a number of very interesting questions and facts. He claims that the Biblical understanding of a non-moving earth with set limits to its atmosphere with the universe moving around the earth is the truly factual and scientific explanation. It is interesting to note that there exists a very important difference between an explanation and a theory. An explanation is based upon facts while a theory is based upon an interpretation and upon hypothesis of observable facts (or at least what is perceived to be facts).

A Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), proposed and advanced the theory that the universe was not moving around the stationary Earth as had always been understood previously, but that the Earth and other planets revolve around the sun. In time, this came to be the accepted theory which has been taught as FACT, even though there have been and remain serious factual challenges to this theory. Moreover, it is taught as FACT, even though it cannot be proven except by measurements taken from outside the universe.

The blessed Dr. Martin Luther had this to say of Copernicus, as is recorded in the table talk of Luther’s Works , volume 54:

No. 4638: Luther Rejects the Copernican Cosmology
June 4, 1539

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked,] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].”

This is typical of Luther and those who with him hold to the belief that human reason must always be subjected to the Word of God and the Scriptures and never the other way around. Nevertheless, I confess that for most of my life I have permitted a compromise regarding this principal of faith. Since the Copernican theory has always been taught to me as factual, even though I have often encountered reasons to challenge it, both Biblical and scientific reasons, I have always reasoned that it was possible that the Scriptural statements were meant to be from the human point of perspective and not as divinely ordained revelation of universal truth.

Marshall Hall sets forth some very powerful facts on his website In reading his statements I have found that he does very well in presenting the facts. However, a few of his applications of those facts fall short on occasion. Nevertheless, even with those few misapplications where he does not quite follow through properly with the logic of the argument, he does make the case quite convincingly.

As I mentioned above, I myself have encountered some serious challenges to the heliocentric theory in the facts that I have observed. First is the fact that whatever observed facts that are stated as proofs of a rotating earth can be applied with equal ease to a non-rotating earth. In conjunction with this is the FACT that all these observations are relative to the person’s location/position in the universe, which observations are limited (not from outside the universe).

Another observation that I have noticed is that the movement of the earth’s air flow, especially the jet streams, is better explained by a non-moving earth. The explanation for this takes more space than I plan to allot to this blog, but I may post something further at a later time on the web site.

For the space allotted here, I will draw your attention to the earth’s surface. This is a bit easier to comprehend in a short explanation. Consider the fact that 3/4 of the Earth’s surface is comprised of water. Now this is just the surface, extending only a few miles. Seventy-five percent of the earth’s surface is water, with only twenty-five percent remaining for continental land masses. Then take into account that these continental land masses have gaps between them and do not reach from pole to pole unbroken.

With this picture in mind, a picture that is not theory but is validated by photographs from beyond the earth’s surface (from space), if the globe were spinning at the surface at the proposed rate of 1024 miles per hour, what would the water be doing? If you have trouble grasping this you can put a drop of water on a top and spin it. Or even more easily you can observe what happens to the water during the spin cycle of your washing machine.

Assuming that the water of the earth would not fly off from the surface as it does in your washing machine or your spinning top, it nevertheless would resist the direction of the spinning surface. It would pile up, so to speak, against the eastern shores of the continents so that the sea level would measure higher on the eastern shores than on the western shores of the continents. Moreover, that water would flow around the continents at quite a rapid rate. What happens to a mass of land when water flows around it at any rate, particularly a rapid rate? Can you imagine the erosion of the continents if the earth were spinning at 1024 miles per hour at the earth’s surface? How long would it take to erode and completely demolish the continental land masses? If the earth were anywhere near the age of 15 billion years that the heliocentricists and evolutionists claim, we all would be living in houseboats because no land mass could have survived the erosive effects of a spinning earth.

This does make one wonder about the science that we have had rammed down our throats and pounded into our brains, does it not?

This especially should cause Christians to ponder. Which is to be believed explicitly: the science of Man or the science of the Scriptures? Which should be counted worthy of belief and of questioning? Keeping in mind that “science” means knowledge, which science is to be trusted? Which science has ultimate authority?

Something to think about as we look up to see the long ago scheduled lunar eclipse this day of March 3, 2007.

No comments: