Mistakes in our holy book? [Part 2]
DISCUSSING ONTOLOGICAL IDEAS A talk by Un Sun Moon
Correction 1: Planetary orbits as spherical
In Chapter 1, The Principles of Creation, the section on the mode of existence of the four-position foundation talks primarily about elliptical motion, and secondarily about spherical motion. The main point of the discussion of spherical motion is the fact that the relationship between subject and object is not rigid. There's a lot of flexibility and variety within a single relationship. The Principles mentions that because the angle of revolution between subject and object is constantly changing, the elliptical movement becomes a spherical movement. The text also explains that when the elliptical movement of the subject partner and the object partner on a single plane becomes a spherical movement in a three-dimensional orbit, the dynamism and creativity of the universe unfolds; and that variations in each orbit's distance, shape, state, direction, angle, force, and velocity are manifest as the beauty of creation in its infinite variety. This is all very true. Love - and relationships of all kinds based on goodness - should be full, pleasing, rich, and three-dimensional, not flat, stifling, oppressive, or monotonous. A two-dimensional relationship has to develop and be transformed into a three-dimensional one.
So it was unfortunate that in the original Korean Principles book we were using the example of the solar system - and almost made the same mistake again in the English version - to illustrate this transformation of relationship. The text originally offered, as the first example of this principle of spherical motion, the solar system, making the plainly inaccurate claim that the planets revolved around the sun at varying angles that created a spherical pattern. In reality, the set of combined paths of the planets as they orbit the sun is literally as flat as a pancake! In recent years, it would be very easy for even a child to check this on the Internet, but the more time-consuming method in the 70s of asking some knowledgeable person was well worth it. How would it look to claim to have a new revelation from God that had some basic scientific facts wrong?