1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say That The Earth Doesn’t Move?

1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say That The Earth Doesn’t Move?

The earth will not be “removed” from its position. If the earth did not rotate, we would not have the following:

Genesis 8:22

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Strong’s Hebrew: 4131. מוֹט (mot) – to totter, shake, slip

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, exceedingly, falling down

A primitive root; to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall – be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.


Me thinks you aren’t reading the Bible literally and would be in some hot water if this was your argument in 1620.


If one can see fixed orbits in “it shall never be moved,” there’s no barrier to seeing evolution in “let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind.”


What is your position? Not sure what you are saying.

What more can be said? I forgot :grimacing: Most do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve here. If it wasn’t for the faith of Christ indwelling me, I might not either.

Can you deactivate my account please

Many here do believe in a literal Adam and Eve while also accepting evolution and an old earth.

What do you think about those who attribute their belief in a truly fixed earth to their faith in Christ as well? Perhaps we shouldn’t attribute our scientific beliefs to God. After all, we could be wrong, and we wouldn’t want to blame God for our own error.


In multiple places the Bible says the earth doesn’t move

Who said anything about being removed? The ancients believed that the sun orbits the earth. Heliocentrism caused a disturbance in the Church back in the day.
I’ve already listed the ways that the earth moves.

This seems to be a deal breaker to to some Christians. I have be warning people here about this, when people take their hostility to an historical Adam and Eve too far.

I believe in an historical Adam and Eve. It is not a deal breaker for me. But I do think this is a more meaningful understanding of the story. And there is certainly no reason to come to a conclusion that these individuals did not exist from evolution.

I have been looking over all the uses of the Hebrew in the Bible and I think this translation of the word does work in all of them. It is not the majority translation and in Psalm 104 it comes with the word מְכוֹנֶ֑יהָ or foundations comparing the earth to a building. But even in that, a good argument can be made that this about making something which lasts rather than something which does not move. And anyway in modern physics there is not absolute rest or motion. Motion is relative and depends entirely on what reference frame you choose.

1 Like

That’s a fair point. For my own part, I can accept that the earth is old. I can accept that humans and animals share a common ancestor. I can accept that Adam and Eve weren’t the only people around at the time. But personally I find that suggesting that they didn’t even exist at all is taking things a bit too far. I know I’ve talked about there being an element of passing the buck in the doctrine of original sin, but when I read Romans 5 I find I still need to assume that there was an actual historical Fall at some time in Earth’s history in order to understand God’s plan of salvation.

It’s just unfortunate that people such as Kelli conflate a historical Adam with all the young earth nonsense, and assume that just because we don’t acknowledge that Noah had sauropod dinosaurs on board the Ark, that somehow means we believe there’s no such thing as sin. But nothing could be further from the truth.


As others have already expressed in other threads, Kelli has long taken her leave of this setting, so it’s probably better not to keep responding to stuff she’s said (unless there are loose ends still dangling that haven’t yet been responded to). So in the absence of her direct interaction, let’s not keep bringing her up.


True that.  

And if it is true that they are individuals that once lived, I am fine with that. Even though I find their story a bit too shrouded in myth to have much history in it. As you said, Romans 5 makes it all pretty difficult to argue against Paul taking Adam as a real person. Paul argues a lot of things, however, that are sort of fluid (slavery, gender roles) so a wooden reading of Romans 5 may not be in order.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Roger Sawtelle retiring!

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.