But you are presenting your view as the exclusive teaching of Scripture. Perhaps you should read your own posts more carefully.
Another Article Against Geocentrism
- Thread starter Afterthought
- Start date
- Status
But you are presenting your view as the exclusive teaching of Scripture. Perhaps you should read your own posts more carefully.
Excuse me, but I have made it a point to not argue for either position, much less present one view as the exclusive teaching of Scripture. That is going against the very point of my argument. Please see below.
I do not think you are understanding me, Rev. Winzer. Please, please try to understand me—what I am saying and what I am not saying. This conversation is really tiring me out. I am not opposed to anyone arguing for either model from Scripture. I see them both as being equally viable. My exclusive issue is not when someone argues for a position from Scripture, but when they assert that one position is the definitive teaching of Scripture on the subject. Perhaps the reason I have opposed all geocentric arguments has not been made clear, and that is my fault. The reason is that I am reacting against a claim made in the beginning of this thread that the geocentric model is the only biblical position. Thus, the reason I have opposed geocentric arguments after that is not to argue for a heliocentric model, but simply to show that both positions are viable solidly from the passages usually presented as teaching a geocentric model.
Perhaps that will clear this up.
I understand you quite well, Taylor. By your criticisms of the geocentic position you have exposed your position to view; and at each point your position has met with a counter-argument to show the weakness of your view you have objected that you weren't setting forth a position.
The only view I have presented is that either position has equal validity from Scripture. I have said that repeatedly and clearly. Any other view is merely imposed upon me unfairly and dishonestly. I have expressed clearly my particular rhetorical reason for opposing the geocentric view. Please see above if that needs clarification.
That is correct, Taylor. You have insisted that the Bible speaks in phenomenological language, and that it is invalid to adopt a literalistic hermeneutic in the way it is adopted by the geocentric position. In other words, you have argued AGAINST the geocentric view being Scriptural and FOR the position which opposes the geocentric view.
I don't think so. I have only tried to say that saying it does or can is not somehow a less honoring hermeneutic.
I don't believe I have said it is invalid. It is invalid to say that a literalistic hermeneutic is the only valid way to read Scripture. That is what I am trying to say.
You are simply (and conveniently) not reading what I have been saying.
Then why did you bring in the organic nature of inspiration? This was a dogmatic argument on your part.
And yet you disallowed it. You stated, "That is dangerously close to—if not all the way—denying the organic inspiration of Scripture, and leans toward a mechanistic view." You clearly do not leave "both viable options open." You assert a dogma in opposition to the geocentrist's interpretation.
I disallowed it insofar as the interpretation is given on the belief that a literalistic hermeneutic is the only viable hermeneutic. Context, context, context. The assertion was made in an attempt to strip the human author of all human qualities, which was in that case done for the explicit purpose of excluding one possibility over the other. Hence the reason I disallowed it. Again, to argue for the organic inspiration of Scripture in no way disallows for a literalistic hermeneutic, but only forces us to acknolwedge the phenomenological view as viable, as well. Again, that and that alone is my intention.
I don't believe that attempt was made at all. You have read this into the words, and you have done so on the basis of your dogmatic position concerning the nature of Scripture.
It most definitely was. The post was arguing that because "the sun standing still in the sky" was described by the biblical author and not a statement of a human character in the narrative (such as in the cited Nehemiah passage), that phenomenological language is therefore not possible, that it somehow made a difference that the biblical writer himself was describing an event, I assume because of a mechanistic view of inspiration.
Yes, you assume the worst of one position and the best of another. That exposes your position, though you try to conceal it from the view of others.
How convenient. You assert to know both my intentions and my motives without providing a shred of evidence or even an argument that my assessment of the post is somehow invalid. You simply assert that it is and expect your word alone to hold water.
I was simply addressing the argument presented with my own which, unless I have been mistaken this whole time, is a purpose of a forum, this one not being excluded. These lengths to which you are going to take stabs at me is, quite frankly, becoming quite amusing. You are trying your hardest to put words in my mouth and intentions in my heart in order to get some kind of leg up, and it is getting rather pitiful.
At no time have I said that one of the two positions is better than the other. I challenge you to find me saying such. I have stated something quite different, in fact, and that is that either position is validly argued from Scripture, and that neither one has a leg up given the Scriptural data we were given.
No, your own words bear witness.
I have already met the challenge. The thread speaks for itself. Your words speak for themselves.
Yes it is. I have already brought examples. The thread itself is the record. I will have to leave it there.
Seems to me you realize you have overstated your claims against me which, again, is evidenced by your inability to substantiate your claims. You have reached the end of your arsenal, and are resorting to silly, fabricated grievances which, until you can demonstrate how I have misrepresented or misinterpreted the post(s), remain fabrications. It is evident by your inability to defend you claims and made more evident by your sudden shortness with me.
Last edited:
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Common sense is what leads to the argument for the earth spinning and moving around the sun. How is the following not plain common sense (which I suppose is induction of a sort) applied to the phenomena?MW said:
1) Spinning objects on the earth exhibit certain unique phenomena.
2) Observed spinning objects in the heavens exhibit the same unique phenomena as spinning objects on earth.
3) The earth exhibits this same set of unique phenomena.
4) Therefore, the earth is probably spinning.
Or how about (although it involves more abstract entities, the reasoning is still genuinely inductive)?
1) Objects that move around each other on earth orbit a special mathematical point that we can calculate. This mathematical point tells us which objects appear to move around which objects when we look at them with our own eyes.
2) Objects in the heavens that move around each orbit the mathematical point that is calculated in the same way as on earth.
3) Calculating this mathematical point for the earth and sun, we find that the mathematical point is inside the sun.
4) So the earth probably moves around the sun and not the other way (in the sense that this is what we would see with our eyes).
It is certainly true that things are not always what we see ("bent" stick in water example); neither are things always in accord with common sense (your example of jumping in space); but these are phenomena that do not go away by a change of dynamical model (indeed, I think these observations are granted by geocentrists): they are observed, and there are ways to tell whether what we see is an illusion or not ("bent" stick in water example) and some ways to detect illusion exist in the case of geocentrism vs acentrism. I don't see how these observed phenomena could be explained in a geocentric dynamics without making the physics of the earth--as a body--behave completely differently from every heavenly and earthly body. I'm not saying it is absolutely impossible: that is too dogmatic from a scientific perspective. But from the perspective of common sense induction: if it behaves like it is rotating, it is probably rotating, unless someone can prove otherwise.
That is what I was talking about with the metaphysics of geocentrism seeming to destroy common sense: we have to deny that we can determine that something is rotating if it exhibits unique phenomena associated with rotation. If one was on another planet and saw this same phenomena, none would hesitate to conclude that the planet was rotating; likewise, if one was on a merry-go-round, one would observe the same phenomena and not hesitate to conclude that one was rotating, rather than the earth spinning around the person on the merry-go-round.
The piece of string does have an invariant length according to modern physics. While that length could be measured in different units, the length remains the same. By "distance," I mean far enough away to get a good perspective on the matter. But I think that all that is really required is to be in a position of space that does not share the motion of the sun and the earth and does not block the view of the earth-sun system.MW said:
Ah, good point. When I was speaking of the metaphysics of relativist physics, I was not intending to refer to all the extra metaphysical baggage that people add to the physics in an attempt to find an ultimate explanation of life. I was merely referring to the metaphysics of motion in the relativist physics. Since no objection was raised to the relativist physics on this ground (since it acknowledges that the sun moves when one is on earth), it would seem there is no conflict between this metaphysics and the truth of Scripture concerning the sun's motion?MW said:
(For those interested, an interesting comment by an expert in general relativity. However, it seems to me that the way "experts" interpret general relativity depend on prior metaphysical assumptions and assumptions about the philosophy of science; those with a less "realist" view of science tend to hold to a more "relative" view of general relativity. I have still not been able to get to the bottom of this difficulty yet.)
I don't see how this is a precarious view of matter and time. I may be missing the point.MW said:
Last edited:
Raymond, If we go back to the atom illustration my common sense does not tell me I can see atoms. I now reason in relation to them, but it is not common sense to say that I now see them. The fact is, I can't see them. The same applies with your example of rotation. We have moved beyond the realm of common sense and are reasoning on the basis of relevant data.
You would feel your motion on the merry-go-round.
You are correct -- I have accidentally switched objects with my "precarious view" statement. Seeing it out of context has thrown me. Sorry about that. Particular examples in relation to matter and time would be things like expansion, space-time, multiverse, homogeneity, etc., which are all related to the metaphysical issues I had mentioned previously concerning the idea of eternity.
You would feel your motion on the merry-go-round.
You are correct -- I have accidentally switched objects with my "precarious view" statement. Seeing it out of context has thrown me. Sorry about that. Particular examples in relation to matter and time would be things like expansion, space-time, multiverse, homogeneity, etc., which are all related to the metaphysical issues I had mentioned previously concerning the idea of eternity.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mr. Sexton are you undergoing training and examination for ordained ministry? If so, I hope you know that the above is not an option for the one who would be shepherd of God's people. I don't mean this as a "slam" to you at all, just to hopefully make you aware that someone who presents multiple sides of an argument without coming down on a side is a lecturer, not a pastor. A pastor shepherds. He will guide the sheep, even with fear and trembling before God, according to what he believes is taught in God's Word. Saying it is a 50/50 chance that this is true or that the other is true is pastoral abdication.
For this issue, that's a load of absolute crock, first off because that is not what I am saying. Secondly, I will definitely explain my own position based on the evidence I see, and also defend my own position to my congregation, but I will also be quick to inform them that there are other viable views on this matter, and that that fact has no bearing on the reliability or clarity of God's Word. To lead anyone into thinking that only one of these views (keep in mind that I am only speaking of the issue immediately at hand) is the biblical one is deceptive, not biblical confidence. That has been my contention this entire thread. I will land on a position, for sure, and even defend it, trying to convince others of it, but I will not mislead others into thinking I have the right interpretation when others are just as viable, and I will also hold my position on this matter, whatever it may be, with an open hand, ready and happy to change my view when convinced otherwise.
Seriously, some of you act as if one's view of the center of the universe (or solar system, or whatever) is the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. People: it is okay regarding this specific issue to believe that there are multiple viable views, since it is beyond clear that Scripture does not speak to the issue clearly and especially not didactically.
You are partly right on the distinction between a lecturuer and a pastor. A lecture does tend to make known as many views as possible on any given subject (although good preaching has to do this as well, because pastors have to teach). However, anyone who would try to assert to others that there is only one biblical position on a particular issue when for that issue it is in fact not the case is neither a pastor or a lecturer, but a liar.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Taylor, I simply asked for your own interpretation of the meaning of the account. You admit a phenomological view can be taken. Why? Explain why you think it can be so to me. I really want to understand your interpretation of the passage not your conclusion about the passage.
Last edited:
So, how are we to understand passages (e.g. Ex 3:17) where God describes Canaan as a land flowing with milk and honey? Do they necessitate rivers of milk or are they "obviously a figure of speech"?
What about what the narrator says in Mark 1:5. Does it include EVERYONE or can that be taken as a figure of speech? If so, why is it different from the Joshua passage?
Joshua says in the sight of all Israel, "Sun, stand thou still." A person uses a figure of speech when he intends to refer to something other than the literal referent. For Joshua to use a figure of speech he must have thought that something else happens in order to give the appearance that the sun moves; and for the people of Israel to know that Joshua was using a figure of speech they must have thought so too. Now, what evidence is there that Joshua or the people thought that something else causes the sun to appear to move? There is none. There is therefore no evidence that Joshua intended his statement as a figure of speech.
Those who hold heliocentricity usually avoid the idea of "error" in this passage by saying that the passage is simply accommodated to the way people thought at that time; and now that we are supposed to know better we can understand what is said as speaking according to the senses. On that explanation, though, there is no figure of speech. It is understood to be a literal statement which speaks according to the way the senses perceive things.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Agreed, but should a pastor exposit a model of the solar system from this passage in the first place? Surely that's not the purpose of this record.
Anyway, this thread has become very cringe-worthy for a lot of reasons...
- Status