Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[buffalo]

I wonder if perhaps you’re missing rossum’s point. You know now that such language is metaphorical, but did they know that then? Other ancient cultures certainly held such language literally, that the earth literally had four corners.

What has struck me in looking into this particular topic is just how consistently, among the Church Fathers and the medieval theologians, these matters of cosmologies were taken as matters of natural philosophy and not as matters of faith.

For example, surveying the array of patristic quotations presented in support of geocentrism we can ask how many give any support to a central, immovable earth based upon a scriptural citation? (The list linked is materially the same as that presented in Galileo Was Wrong vol. 2)

Unless I am missing some–which is possible, I’m open to correction–I see two: one from Athenagoras and one allegedly from Clement of Rome. I say allegedly because, although Sungenis presents it as from St. Clement, it is actually from one of the Clementine Homilies which are universally acknowledged not to emanate from St. Clement of Rome–Sungenis does not alert the reader to this fact. So from Sungenis’ evidence only one Father actually cites sacred Scripture on the matter of a centralized earth. The quote from Athenagoras is as follows: “To Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center.” Notice that this is simply a bare citation from the poetic Psalms, it is not a patristic exposition supporting geostationism per se.

Eight other witnesses do speak, in various astrological/quasi-philosophical/quasi-scientific terms, of earth at the center of things. These are Anatolius of Alexandria, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Hippolytus, and Methodius. But in none of these instances do the witnesses cite Scripture, say or even imply that they are passing on a sacred Tradition, or indicate that their view is divinely revealed by God. As was argued elsewhere here on CAF:
But providing quotes which prove that the Church Fathers personally held geocentrism (which is all John Salza does) is not the same as providing evidence that they held it to be a a revealed truth of the Christian faith. In fact, none of the Church Fathers (much less all of them) ever made such a claim. Again, let me point out that when Saint Thomas argues for geocentrism in the Summa, he argues based on the observations of a natural scientist and a pagan: Ptolemy. Not a single Church Father. Not a single passage of Scripture. Ptolemy. Geocentrism is a question for natural science, not a truth of the Catholic faith. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6714246&postcount=135)
Now these relatively few witnesses certainly do not represent any “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. And notice that the majority even of these don’t cite Scripture or Tradition in support of geostationism. What or whom do they cite? Anatolius cites the Greek philosophers Eudemus, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. St. Basil speaks generally of “inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth”; notice that he makes this a matter of natural science, not a theological point. Hippolytus cites Ecphantus and Sungenis seems to me to have misread the saint, for Bob asserts that St. Hippolytus is refuting Ecphantus, but it appears to me from the text that St. Hippolytus is merely stating what Ecphantus believed without making any judgment on it. Thus this is actually one less Father that can be cited in support of geostationism or, if Sungenis is correct, then one Father who refutes it. And Methodius speaks of the “Chaldeans and Egyptians” and also of the mathematicians of the Greeks.

Thus, only one Father explicitly cites Scripture on geostationism (if that is actually what he’s doing, which is not clear from that single passage), but several Fathers reference the Greeks and other pagans on the matter of geostationism. This is what is found in the citations provided by Sungenis himself. The evidence certainly suggests that they did not see this as a matter of faith.

And taking St. Thomas as representative of medieval thought, as was already mentioned above:
Even Saint Thomas, when he argued for the geocentric cosmology in the Summa, argued based on the observations of Ptolemy, a natural scientist and a pagan. Not the Bible. Not the Church fathers. Ptolemy. This is a question for natural science, not an article of the faith. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6706105&postcount=75)A question for natural science and not an article of faith – that is exactly what is taught by Popes Leo XIII (in Providentissimus Deus 18-91) and Pius XII (in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3). As Catholics in these matters we have freedom in these matters. We are certainly not compelled, as a matter of faith, to buy into a view of the universe that I think I have adequately demonstrated above represents a massive exercise in special pleading.

Just think - sometime in the future someone will claim our present day (ancient to them) culture believed in the multi-verse. So what?

 

[hansgeorg]

“Pope John Paul II stated in 1992:”

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture…

OK.

Problem is the words which I underlined with bold are not true.

Only on the hypothesis that masses and gravity determine all movements in a planetary system, we could come to that conclusion. That was not even one of Galileo’s own tenets, as far as the general public have yet been told.

Newton came up with that. Even he said that God probably adjusted orbits from time to time, to prevent them from falling into sun or shooting off at at tangent.

And as for Laplace denying that, I have heard lots about the fact, notably that Napoleon followed Newton in his caution, whereas Laplace answered “I have had no need/use for that hypothesis”.

As far as astronomers back then in general thought - and this has not yet been proven untrue! - planetary movements are due to angels moving them.

 

[hansgeorg]

They can to us now. To the Ancient Babylonians there were an exact description of the world, a flat square. IIRC the Sumerians had the world as a flat disc. Both versions, Babylonian square and Sumerian disc, can be found in the Bible. When originally written they were taken literally; these days they are taken metaphorically, as you point out.

Different interpretations at different times.

rossum

If you had read my text on one line, you would have found there is a literal interpretation of those words that still functions while believing we live on a globe.

The four corners in the sense of sides would be coasts of Arctic Sea, Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, surrounding a big threefold “continent” or “mainland” - which is a valid translation of the Hebrew word also rendered earth (it also means land). The corners in the real geometric sense would be about Scandinavia (NW) Kamtchatka (NE) Singapoor (SE) and Capetown (SW).

Not knowing about the Antipodes is common to Babylonians and Hebrew readers of Bible, but the latter had no holy text positively or by logical implication denying them.

In this view, the biggest Island is not Greenland, not even Ulimaroa (together with Tasmania constituting Commonwealth of Australia, which is why it is often known as Australia - 150 yers ago the name of Oceania), but either of the two Americas, who up to digging of Panamà canal were really one big Island.

 

[hansgeorg]

We have the written Babylonian and Sumerian records. Some passages in the Bible match those records: “four corners”. We know that the Hebrews had contacts with Sumer (Ur is in Sumer) and with Babylon of course. It is not unreasonable that the Hebrews would have talked about such questions with other peoples they were in contact with.

True enough.

We also know they had contacts with Phenicians, who had by watching sails disappear after ships (which therefore did not disappear only due to distance) and that from high watchtowers (thus ships did not disappear behind waves) had come to the conclusion that the sea was a curved surface, that we live on a globe.

It is not unreasonable that olden Hebrews took a neutral position on this question.

 

[Seagirt]

[SIGN]me and sungenis,
will that do?[/SIGN]

Actually it has from most angles the illusion of being flat - or like a very buckly thing lying flat on a floor. But we do actually see angles from which it is very clear that it is not flat at sea.

We also get the testimony of voyage.

Unlike this, the supposed evidence for heliocentrism is not at all of voyage kind, except in space Operas like Aniara (really an opera with singers and orchestra, a tragedy in which we hear “Doris” (planet earth) “is dead”), Star Wars and Star Trek, not to mention my fav, Space Agent Valerian. But crossing this or that ocean is not uncommon, I have crossed the Atlantic and seen the Pacific, and I know a Chinese American who has crossed the Pacific. Not so for “interstellar voyage”.

And port views of ships where masts stay visible when the rest is no more seen, like the Eratosthenic experiment are really unequivocally against flatness where it would be expected.

All supposed evidence for heliocentrism is equivocal. It is an interpretation grid set on evidence, not a logically valid conclusion from it.

No, you give them the vitriol.

You lie down and say meekly that the Church was wrong to condemn Galileo or at least wrong on the scientific issue, if not in scientific formalities. They despise it, but are polite about it, and when the real challenge to their faith comes in a geocentric, you give them the opportunity “not to take me/him seriously”.

They are glad to shun debate about this, and social non-status assignment to geocentrics is very much an excuse they will take.

Of course they have lots of vitriol among themselves. I mentioned Aniara. In it “Doris” (=planet earth) is supposed to have died because of nuclear war because of bad human behaviour including religious wars, which they still - after the XX C.! - suppose themselves to be saving the “planet” from.

Their vitriol really comes from assigning a quasi-messianic role to atheism as far as society as a whole is concerned.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BLOGSPOTS CONCERNING SUNGENIS-- MOST ARE VERY CRITICAL OF HIM. BUT HIS APOLOGETICS BOOKS WERE WELL DINE.

• The conference’s main organizer is a Catholic apologist named Robert Sungenis, co-author of a two-volume work with the same title as the conference. To get an idea of the quality of the scholarship undergirding Sungenis’ “Galileo Was Wrong” book and conference, one need only scan the title of the conference’s keynote address, to be delivered by Sungenis himself: “Geocentrism: They Know It But They’re Hiding It.”

That’s right. The past four centuries of scientific advances in physics and astronomy — and the space program too — are all a vast, diabolical conspiracy. Sungenis, unsurprisingly, professes to be agnostic about whether or not man has really walked on the moon.

When he’s not weaving nutty conspiracy theories about scientists trying to keep us from finding out that the earth is the only thing in the universe that doesn’t move, Sungenis is weaving ugly and paranoid conspiracy theories about (you guessed it) the Jews. No doubt he’ll reveal during his keynote address that it’s the Jews who are also behind the anti-geocentrism conspiracy.

Should we be concerned about a gathering of lunatic fringe pseudoscientists? Maybe not. Most of us can safely ignore their ravings, or at most hold them up for a little much-deserved mockery. But as a Catholic, I have a personal stake in this. Sungenis and his colleagues can make fools of themselves if they like, but I wish they’d stop making Christianity and Catholicism look foolish too.

 

[buffalo]

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BLOGSPOTS CONCERNING SUNGENIS-- MOST ARE VERY CRITICAL OF HIM. BUT HIS APOLOGETICS BOOKS WERE WELL DINE.

• The conference’s main organizer is a Catholic apologist named Robert Sungenis, co-author of a two-volume work with the same title as the conference. To get an idea of the quality of the scholarship undergirding Sungenis’ “Galileo Was Wrong” book and conference, one need only scan the title of the conference’s keynote address, to be delivered by Sungenis himself: “Geocentrism: They Know It But They’re Hiding It.”

That’s right. The past four centuries of scientific advances in physics and astronomy — and the space program too — are all a vast, diabolical conspiracy. Sungenis, unsurprisingly, professes to be agnostic about whether or not man has really walked on the moon.

When he’s not weaving nutty conspiracy theories about scientists trying to keep us from finding out that the earth is the only thing in the universe that doesn’t move, Sungenis is weaving ugly and paranoid conspiracy theories about (you guessed it) the Jews. No doubt he’ll reveal during his keynote address that it’s the Jews who are also behind the anti-geocentrism conspiracy.

Should we be concerned about a gathering of lunatic fringe pseudoscientists? Maybe not. Most of us can safely ignore their ravings, or at most hold them up for a little much-deserved mockery. But as a Catholic, I have a personal stake in this. Sungenis and his colleagues can make fools of themselves if they like, but I wish they’d stop making Christianity and Catholicism look foolish too.

Why is it people always disparage the person?

Refute the claims not the person.

 

[rossum]

Refute the claims not the person.

I was trained as a scientist and I was taught some astronomy as part of my physics degree. There is no conspiracy to hide the geocentric nature of reality because reality is not geocentric. Sungenis’ claims of such a conspiracy are false.

rossum

 

[DavidPalm]

Why is it people always disparage the person?

Refute the claims not the person.

Two words: credibility and character. If far-fetched claims, requiring copious amounts of special pleading and conspiracy theories to prop them up, are put forward by an individual with well-documented difficulties in both the credibility and character departments, well then for most people with common sense those views can be safely ignored. I’m going to bet that you understand this dynamic in principle, even if you are loath to apply it to this specific case.

In this case we’ve seen that you are completely unable (or at the very least unwilling) to summarize why this view should be taken as more likely than the mainstream view. Why you keep shilling for such an individual on behalf of such a belief remains a mystery to me.

 

[buffalo]

Two words: credibility and character. If far-fetched claims, requiring copious amounts of special pleading and conspiracy theories to prop them up, are put forward by an individual with well-documented difficulties in both the credibility and character departments, well then for most people with common sense those views can be safely ignored. I’m going to bet that you understand this dynamic in principle, even if you are loath to apply it to this specific case.

In this case we’ve seen that you are completely unable (or at the very least unwilling) to summarize why this view should be taken as more likely than the mainstream view. Why you keep shilling for such an individual on behalf of such a belief remains a mystery to me.

Simply refute his arguments.

 

[DavidPalm]

Simply refute his arguments.

Done. Right here. Neither you nor he can present the opposing “case” as anything other than a massive exercise in special pleading, woven together with unsupported conspiracy theories. Case closed.

 

[rossum]

Simply refute his arguments.

Here is one of the results of the recent earthquake near Japan: Instruments saw Japan quake lurch
Now, since part of the Earth moved 20m we can be sure that the Earth is not static. What about the centre of the universe. Did it move 20m? Did it move 10m? Did it not move at all? It is essential that you show your working.

rossum

 

[DavidPalm]

Here is one of the results of the recent earthquake near Japan: Instruments saw Japan quake lurchrossum

One good thing that does come out of even a discussion like this is that I learn new things. The nutation (polar wobble) of the earth and the influence of tides on the rotation of the earth is now measurable in at least three ways:

Lunar Laser Ranging (using mirrors placed there by the Apollo astronauts, Sungenis’ lunar landing denial notwithstanding). See for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

and especially

physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Dickey.pdf

Ring Lasers in subterranean caverns:

ringlaser.org.nz/content/about_us.php

physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/related/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/Stedman2001JB000569.pdf

arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156v1

And Very Long Baseline Interferometry, which we’ve already discussed some here on this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLBI

bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Now again, we would expect a body rotating on its axis to have nutation-precession and would expect its rotational velocity to vary according to the tidal action of its moon(s). And how interesting that these three independent techniques–one bouncing lasers off the moon, one monitoring ultra-distant quasars, and one measuring the Sagnac effect of lasers in subterranean caverns–all give statistically equivalent results, indicating just such motion.

Oh, or is it really that the entire universe wobbles in just such a way that it looks like nutation and tidal deceleration and that by some strange coincidence it has exactly the same effect on quasars, the moon, and the Sagnac effect on light beams below the earth’s surface measure.

I wonder which is “most likely”?

 

[razredge]

Sigh - people like this who want to drag us all back to the dark ages where the Bible was Scripture and history/science textbook all in one are honestly an embarassment to the Catholic faith and just give more ammunition to the atheists.

St Augustine would be rolling in his grave:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

 

[hansgeorg]

Re: Geocentrism: why doesn’t it just die and be done with?

Sigh - people like this who want to drag us all back to the dark ages where the Bible was Scripture and history/science textbook all in one are honestly an embarassment to the Catholic faith and just give more ammunition to the atheists.

St Augustine would be rolling in his grave:

I did write an answer to this, including a copy of St Augustine’s text quoted. This means I was already logged in. When I tried to post it, I got “you are not logged in”, when I logged in I came back to only above.

This happened on the shared computers - me having obviously a guest profile - of Bibliothèque publique d’Information, Georges Pompidou, Paris.

Guess they feel they are being laughed at. And, no, they are not Geocentrics. They are either atheists or in this question your kind of believer.

 

[hansgeorg]

… St Augustine would be rolling in his grave:

First off, it is not saints who roll in their graves, if any do.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.

A case in point: non-flatness and thus globality or “part-of-globality” of earth was with greatest certainty proven by Eratosthenes. It is since been proven not only as to non-flatness but also as to “not-just-part-of-globality” by Columbus.

It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

That might by now (after Columbus) apply to flat earth society. On the other hand, they could appeal to one or other of the two Sts Cyril or the two Sts Cyprian.

In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Well what if “geocentrism after all, even after 1838” IS a better explanation of a passage in say Joshua than heliocentrism?

What if heliocentrism is not all that “known with greatest certainty” or even known at all? What if, for now, taking parallels frome earth a globe case, the 1838 does not constitute an Eratosthenes even, and we all know there was no space Columbus, except in fiction like Star Wars to give us anything like the practical certainty that voyages give of not only existence but relation of lands and regions.

For:

• optical internal relations within solar system does not tell us which of earth or sun circles the other, without taking in the universe outside it, Sungenis agreeing as much with Kepler as Tycho Brahe with Copernicus, none of them violating any optic observations;
• universe outside it does not give a clear Eratosthenes kind of case against geocentrism, not even after 1838, unless I missed something by not looking up this nutation thing yet;
• masses and gravitations and their coherence with observed orbits, as an argument orbits in a vicious circle of not wanting to take into account even the possibility that heavenly bodies are moved by angels.

 

[hansgeorg]

One good thing that does come out of even a discussion like this is that I learn new things. The nutation (polar wobble) of the earth and the influence of tides on the rotation of the earth is now measurable in at least three ways:

Lunar Laser Ranging (using mirrors placed there by the Apollo astronauts, Sungenis’ lunar landing denial notwithstanding). See for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

Edmond Halley was the first to suggest, in 1695,[1] that the mean motion of the Moon was apparently getting faster, by comparison with ancient eclipse observations, but he gave no data. (It was not yet known in Halley’s time that what is actually occurring includes a slowing-down of the Earth’s rate of rotation: see also Ephemeris time - History. When measured as a function of mean solar time rather than uniform time, the effect appears as a positive acceleration.) In 1749 Richard Dunthorne confirmed Halley’s suspicion after re-examining ancient records, and produced the first quantitative estimate for the size of this apparent effect:[2] a centurial rate of +10" (arcseconds) in lunar longitude (a surprisingly good result for its time, not far different from values assessed later, e.g. in 1786 by de Lalande,[3] and to compare with values from about 10" to nearly 13" being derived about century later.)[4][5]

So moon going faster is a proof earth rotates and does so slower how? Quite sure atomic clocks can be trusted?

Pierre-Simon Laplace produced in 1786 a theoretical analysis giving a basis on which the Moon’s mean motion should accelerate in response to perturbational changes in the eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Laplace’s initial computation accounted for the whole effect, thus seeming to tie up the theory neatly with both modern and ancient observations.

However, in 1854, J C Adams caused the question to be re-opened by finding an error in Laplace’s computations: it turned out that only about half of the Moon’s apparent acceleration could be accounted for on Laplace’s basis by the change in the Earth’s orbital eccentricity.[6]

This Laplace was the same guy who said that with righgt masses and gravitation acc. to Newton, the orbits would autoregulate, and that he had calculated that so that no divine or angelic intervention was necessary in orbits?

Sure we can trust Laplace’s calculations as fool proof proof or evidence?

PS: To credit Georges Pompidou Library centre, this post and previous if from their computers. Cpr my complaint two posts up.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why is it that every time a scientific theory comes out, that is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture or past teaching, there are a group of conspiracy theorists ready to say that they are covering up the truth.

If you truly have faith, then wouldn’t it be a more mature move to try and understand the bible in light of other truths, rather than in constant opposition.

 

[hansgeorg]

Why is it that every time a scientific theory comes out, that is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture or past teaching, there are a group of conspiracy theorists ready to say that they are covering up the truth.

If you truly have faith, then wouldn’t it be a more mature move to try and understand the bible in light of other truths, rather than in constant opposition.

Yeah, right. Of course! St Augustine ought to have dealt with Jacob and Esau having same horoscope in the light of astrology rather than dealing with astrology in the light of Esau and Jacob having so diverse characters and fates (Confessiones) … of course that would have been more mature. Duh …

Why is it that YOU cannot deal with argument against the current theory without poopooing opponent every once in a while? Of course, it was you who made the initial question, I seem to remember, some of the answers have come from Geocentrics and instead of dealing with answers as answers, you prefer to rant against the absent one (Sungenis) as a conspiracy theorist.

Would you even recognise your own role in any conspiracy if you looked into the mirror?

 

[excubitor]

Here is one of the results of the recent earthquake near Japan: Instruments saw Japan quake lurch
Now, since part of the Earth moved 20m we can be sure that the Earth is not static. What about the centre of the universe. Did it move 20m? Did it move 10m? Did it not move at all? It is essential that you show your working.

rossum

This has absolutely no bearing on the debate. Part of the earth moved with respect to the great bulk of the earth. This provides no evidence about what the great bulk of the earth is doing.

 

[excubitor]

Why is it that every time a scientific theory comes out, that is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture or past teaching, there are a group of conspiracy theorists ready to say that they are covering up the truth.

If you truly have faith, then wouldn’t it be a more mature move to try and understand the bible in light of other truths, rather than in constant opposition.

The world systems have always and constantly been at odds with God, the scriptures and the church. In ancient times people worshipped idols made out of wood and metal, and the majority of people believed these lies. It’s clear therefore that mankind is capable, as part of a mass delusion, to believe the most ludicrous and monstrous of lies. Man does this because of his powerful natural bias against the revelation of God.

We also have to realise that this world system is driven by the Prince and Power of the air, namely Satan the devil, who is able to deceive men on a large scale. This is why, as Catholics we must be careful to not follow the crowd, particularly when the crowd is believing the direct opposite to the scriptures and the teachings of the church.

*Ephesians 2:2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate [1] concerning the faith. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world

Rev 18:23 thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more*