The fact you need an external apparatus to see it means it is not "common." How you reason about it might differ, but the sense itself is as common as it ever was.
Another Article Against Geocentrism
- Thread starter Afterthought
- Start date
- Status
The fact you need an external apparatus to see it means it is not "common." How you reason about it might differ, but the sense itself is as common as it ever was.
I only require that you use the term according to an accepted definition. By your understanding you would have to say there is no such thing as common sense because men reason differently about what is sensed.
The point is this:
Either theory can be defended from Scripture (whether you like it or not; it is simply so). I know that's difficult for the "Truly Reformed" to accept at times. It's still so. Passages that are presented as proof for the geocentric model, while certainly viable evidence, are yet certainly no proof. The fact is that they do not have to be interpreted that way. Only a dogmatic literalistic (not literal) hermeneutic that denies all possibility of figurative or phenomenological language demands it.
That is my point, and I must leave it at that. I simply cannot stay up all night and argue over things about which Scripture is not clear and, frankly, have no bearing on the Christian walk or (gasp) one's view of Scripture's inspiration. I am open to either position and, since I cannot get a clear answer from Scripture (since it apparently is not trying to answer the question), I am perfectly happy to wait until heaven to be shown the answer.
Either theory can be defended from Scripture (whether you like it or not; it is simply so). I know that's difficult for the "Truly Reformed" to accept at times. It's still so. Passages that are presented as proof for the geocentric model, while certainly viable evidence, are yet certainly no proof. The fact is that they do not have to be interpreted that way. Only a dogmatic literalistic (not literal) hermeneutic that denies all possibility of figurative or phenomenological language demands it.
That is my point, and I must leave it at that. I simply cannot stay up all night and argue over things about which Scripture is not clear and, frankly, have no bearing on the Christian walk or (gasp) one's view of Scripture's inspiration. I am open to either position and, since I cannot get a clear answer from Scripture (since it apparently is not trying to answer the question), I am perfectly happy to wait until heaven to be shown the answer.
I disagree, and I think your position is based on very faulty exegesis and poor dogmatics; and I could just as easily say, "whether you like it or not; it is simply so," but it would accomplish nothing.
The sun hasn't gone down here as yet, but good night to you.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Douglas P.
Puritan Board Freshman
Lynnie,
I was not talking about satellites or spacecraft in orbit around Earth, or how we see them from Earth. I was talking about deep space spacecraft, launched at essentially a strait trajectory, and how they view Earth from deep space.
Toasty is right, if we could get outside the solar system, we could observe whether or not Earth is in motion around the Sun. Although this has never been done with a video camera and visible light, it has been done, and is being done all the time, with radio wave signals from satellites such as Voyager 1 or Cassini.
I drew two pictures to help explain this.
Deep space satellites communicate with Earth via radio signals. These signals are waves, and thus, we can measure the length of the wave (which the satellites do constantly). If the Earth was in motion, we could measure this motion based on the changing length of the waves. This is called Doppler Shift. As it turns out, Earth is in motion, and we do measure a change in the wave length as the Earth orbits the Sun.
If however, all of space revolved around earth, we would never detect a change in wave length from a satellite. As the picture below illustrates.
Earth's motion is an observable, provable fact.
It all depends on how literalistic (not literal) one's hermeneutic is.
The difference in the passages is that the Scripture is not telling us, through the writer/narrator of the account, that the sun became hot. Nehemiah is being quoted (and is obviously using a figure of speech for the day progressing to a certain point, when the gates could be opened). In Joshua 10 however, the writer/narrator is speaking, and is telling us that the sun stopped in its course. In effect, Scripture is telling us that the sun stopped in its course.
That is dangerously close to—if not all the way—denying the organic inspiration of Scripture, and leans toward a mechanistic view. In such a sceme all biblical writers are stripped of their human qualities, prohibiting them the opportunity to themselves use figures of speech. The narrators are just as human as those about which they narrate.
The miracle consisted in a man commanding the sun to stand still in the sight of all Israel and the sun obeyed him.
If the earth stood still on a heliocentric model the people and everything on it would have become missiles. I don't think Israel would have been avenging themselves on their enemies that day. If they were miraculously kept from being launched into the air they would have felt the force of it and realised soon enough that the earth stood still that day.
According to you either position can be defended from Scripture, so you obviously don't have anything to respond to it. As soon as you respond to it you will expose your exegetical and dogmatic position to examination.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Brother, it is a narrative account. Where in this account is the exegetical warrant to read into the account accommodation to error by the writer and/or the viewers of the account or claims of phenomenological wording? Rev. Winzer's reductio ad absurdum is not out of place here. I am eager to be edified by anyone when it comes to understanding Scripture. Can you offer up an analysis of the passages describing the account in question such that we can examine how you view this narrative?
That is precisely my position, with the addition that this is because Scripture does not make it an interest to speak didactically to such an issue as the motions of heavenly bodies. And, when it makes mention, the language can be taken either way with ease, hence the varied positions within Reformed, Bible-believing orthodoxy. I don't know how many times I have to say it or how much clearer I can make it. I think my English is more than plain.
Well, sure. And the very human Joshua (assuming him to be the author) reports that the sun stopped moving.
And yet when you comment you aim your rhetorical ridicule and dogmatic judgments against those who advocate one particular position. You certainly do not act as if either position can be defended from Scripture.
I am not trying to present a view point. For the final time...
ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THESE PASSAGES CAN BE UNDERSTOOD EITHER FROM A LITERALISTIC PERSPECTIVE OR FROM A PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO THE TEXT.
Furthermore, his so-called reductio ad absurdum is hardly such, considering he is drawing from the science he apparently so vehemently questions (inertia, gravity, etc.). I think the only thing here shown to be absurd is the fact that either position is held so dogmatically to be the Scriptural position.
It would not be a reductio if I took it from anywhere else.
You obviously do care otherwise you would not have spent so much time on this thread speaking against the arguments presented for one position. Your actions speak louder than your words.
And the very human weatherman talks about the time of the sunrise and sunset, yet he is surely not presenting by that terminology a geocentric model.
And here when one of the arguments is presented for understanding the Scripture in one particular way, you stand opposed to it, and you do so by utilising the argument which the other side would use. And you expect us to believe that you hold either position can be argued from Scripture?
The argument would be inconsistent if I took it from anywhere else. Your understanding of a reductio is as poor as your understanding of "common sense."
- Status