Because my purpose is not to argue for one position or the other. To do so, therefore, would simply dilute what I am trying to argue, and that is that either position can be argued validly from Scripture, and that, hermeneutically sleaking, no one has the biblical position in this matter. I do not know why that is so difficult to accept or understand.
Another Article Against Geocentrism
- Thread starter Afterthought
- Start date
- Status
Because my purpose is not to argue for one position or the other. To do so, therefore, would simply dilute what I am trying to argue, and that is that either position can be argued validly from Scripture, and that, hermeneutically sleaking, no one has the biblical position in this matter. I do not know why that is so difficult to accept or understand.
It seems to me that those who hold to the biblical, historical accounts of creation and the age of the earth as being literal (if that's the right terminology) have the same issues to face as do those who hold to a moving sun. The conclusions of modern-day science are overwhelmingly against both. We deem it right for a pastor to take a stand from the pulpit on the days of creation and the age of the earth- even deem it necessary because it is believed that this is what Scripture teaches and it has important theological ramifications. Why not the same with the teaching on the movements of the sun and earth? Does it only seem less important because it has been "settled" "science" for longer?
There is also Isaiah 38:7-8 to contend with (or for, depending on one's position!)
Don't hear what I am not saying. I fully believe it is good and right for a pastor (or any Christian) to take a stand on this issue, and even strongly defend it. I love and advocate for that. However, I think it is indeed wrong for a pastor (or any Christian) to move from defending a position on this issue to asserting that their position is the biblical position (again, I am speaking only on this particular issue), whether they be geocentrist, heliocentrist, or otherwise. To be honest, the same goes for the six days of creation. There are godly, Reformed biblical scholars on each side of this issue, the six days of creation issue, and the age of the earth issue, and they all believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. We keep speaking and acting as if these issues have massive doctrinal implications, yet not a one has been presented. I can't think of even one.
Nobody here is arguing that Joshua is using a figure of speech. I certainly am not. Using a figure of speech for something requires the knowledge that what is being literalistically expressed is not so, which Joshua, living before the crafting of the heliocentric theory, could not have possessed. Phenomenological language in his case is different than figurative language, because he had no knowledge of any kind of heliocentric theory to make figurative reference to. From the phenomenological perspective, Joshua was not using a figure of speech, he was simply describing what he saw with his eyes, which is that the sun is moving, not him. Today, however, I could see how phenomenological language can be called a figure of speak, but it is (almost) universally accepted that when someone talks about the "sunrise," they have knowledge that what they are literalistically expressing is not so, but only shorthand for what, in their minds at least, is actually happening.
These issues have doctrinal implications in that the passages concerning creation, the age of the earth, and the movement of the sun are passages in which Scripture is affirming something as true (I know you don't agree that this is true of the Joshua and Isaiah texts, and maybe you don't agree that it's true of the Genesis texts; but it was believed to be so for thousands of years, up until the times of Copernicus). I do believe that the texts concerning the movement of the sun are the same kinds of texts as others that everyone takes to be affirmation on Scripture's part; therefore I would expect a minister to affirm them as such (if he also saw it the same way, of course). If the affirmations of these texts can be categorized as figurative or phenomenological, or otherwise made to be anything but affirmations of reality, then so can many other texts; texts we wouldn't dare to change from inspired affirmations of reality to figurative or phenomenological.
I agree. But, the issue is what they are affirming. If texts are taken literalistically, they are affirming one thing; if taken phenomenologically, they are affirming another. Also, we have to ask what questions the text is seeking to answer.
Like what?
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Why can't we have a calm, quality discussion on geocentrism on the PB? I understand that the idea is shocking to the modern mind, but it is a part of our Reformed heritage (both interpretive and in terms of hermeneutics), and part of the modern mind is allegedly open-mindedness. And this matter also concerns the philosophy of science, which is important to Bible believing Christians who are ridiculed for believing in miracles. If the issue bothers you, you don't need to tell us that it does, and if you are having difficulty communicating your ideas, you can always stop talking and wait until the next thread like this pops up on the PB. Indeed, if one sits and watches and listens one is less likely to read in one's own animosity into the comments of others and may soon be able to see that the issue is not as bad or shocking as it first seems to be; neither are most of those who advocate such questioning the eternal salvation of those who disagree or holding that those who disagree do not affirm the Bible properly (the issue is rather one of consistency and where positions might lead). Community takes time to build. Just saying....
While the doctrinal impact of geocentrism is not as obvious, the six day Creation issue confessionally affects our view of the Sabbath day. One cannot simply say it doesn't matter without confessional argumentation to that end. For what it's worth, those who believe that issues, on which there are firm believers in Scripture that disagree, cannot hold a view as the biblical position, are always going to find matters such as geocentrism, six day creation, etc. as issues that one cannot hold a view on as the biblical position...because those who hold such a position hold other, prior metaphysical and dogmatic commitments that consistently lead to such a position, since arguing about geocentrism or six day creation is fruitless until those dogmatic commitments have been examined and worked out. I wish we could work out the dogmatic commitments on another thread and leave this one for discussing the metaphysical and dynamical issues (and to some degree, exegetical issues/issues involving the relation of Scripture to scientific observation on this particular matter), but I know that all are free to post in this one, unless a moderator says otherwise.
While the doctrinal impact of geocentrism is not as obvious, the six day Creation issue confessionally affects our view of the Sabbath day. One cannot simply say it doesn't matter without confessional argumentation to that end. For what it's worth, those who believe that issues, on which there are firm believers in Scripture that disagree, cannot hold a view as the biblical position, are always going to find matters such as geocentrism, six day creation, etc. as issues that one cannot hold a view on as the biblical position...because those who hold such a position hold other, prior metaphysical and dogmatic commitments that consistently lead to such a position, since arguing about geocentrism or six day creation is fruitless until those dogmatic commitments have been examined and worked out. I wish we could work out the dogmatic commitments on another thread and leave this one for discussing the metaphysical and dynamical issues (and to some degree, exegetical issues/issues involving the relation of Scripture to scientific observation on this particular matter), but I know that all are free to post in this one, unless a moderator says otherwise.
Nicely said.
I think I have stated my case. My point of view regarding this matter has been clearly stated repeatedly. I know they will be misread, maybe deliberately, but I can no longer waste my time and hands constantly restating my point. My words are there. Let the honest reader deal with them.
I'm out.
"I agree. But, the issue is what they are affirming. If texts are taken literalistically, they are affirming one thing; if taken phenomenologically, they are affirming another. Also, we have to ask what questions the text is seeking to answer."
The Joshua 10 account and the Isaiah 38 account are historical narrative, a genre in which historical events are recorded in a reliable way by reliable historians. Joshua is a reliable historian- he is simply telling us what happened. There isn't a place in his account, under this genre, for figurative language or for us to ascribe his account to phenomenological language. Otherwise, many historical accounts in the Bible would become suspect. If you don't agree with this, then we'll just have to leave it at that.
"Like what?"
For different reasons, but all of them supposedly 'scientific,' all the eye-witness accounts of the miraculous deeds of God in the Bible are discounted by liberal theologians. Their arguments against miracles are based on the same presuppositions: science proves that such things are impossible, therefore the accounts of miracles are to be categorized as figurative. It comes down to sound, accepted principles of interpretation doesn't it. Those principles are vital to the health of the church and must be defended.
The Joshua 10 account and the Isaiah 38 account are historical narrative, a genre in which historical events are recorded in a reliable way by reliable historians. Joshua is a reliable historian- he is simply telling us what happened. There isn't a place in his account, under this genre, for figurative language or for us to ascribe his account to phenomenological language. Otherwise, many historical accounts in the Bible would become suspect. If you don't agree with this, then we'll just have to leave it at that.
"Like what?"
For different reasons, but all of them supposedly 'scientific,' all the eye-witness accounts of the miraculous deeds of God in the Bible are discounted by liberal theologians. Their arguments against miracles are based on the same presuppositions: science proves that such things are impossible, therefore the accounts of miracles are to be categorized as figurative. It comes down to sound, accepted principles of interpretation doesn't it. Those principles are vital to the health of the church and must be defended.
Sorry! I was writing my last reply and didn't see this post. Good thoughts, and I'd like to see a thread go as you've proposed. I just prayed this morning and asked the Lord to bring this issue more to the light.
Douglas, I appreciate your imput and drawings with wavelengths changing as something moves towards us and away from us.
Maybe you missed my earlier post. When scientists measured the earth as it rotated, hurling towards a star and then away from a star six months later as it journeyed around the sun, expecting to see the velocity of the wavelengths of light less as it moves towards the star and more as it moves away ( velocity V being subtracted or added to C, the light speed), the EARTH DOES NOT MOVE. Period.
It was a big mystery for decades, until Einstein postulated the speed of light not changing even if the earth is moving. Time Magazine's Person of the Century Issue in 2000 featuring Einstein comes right out and says that his greatness was in being able to overthrow the conclusions of the geocentric experiments. This is all laid out in detail in the better Geocentric literature.
So as I said, the debate now comes down to the theory of relativity. Classical physics and how waves are measured is tossed into the dustbin of history in favor of relativity. There is no other explanation. Light waves do not behave like radar waves and the doppler effect you so nicely tried to explain to me. The earth is motionless, or relativity is correct.
I found this subject to be so enormously wonderful to my faith in biblical inerrancy that I passionately love it, and have spend a lot of time on other threads discussing the science in more depth. However, I think at this point unless sceptical people spend time on serious consideration of the subject ( Sagnac and Michaelson Morley on the geocentric sites is a good start) it is a waste of time to pursue it. Einstein has deluded the masses as badly as Darwin has, and posting here is time consuming and not helpful. I am certainly not about to tackle the theory of relativity on Puritan board. But I do appreciate you trying to open my eyes.
Maybe you missed my earlier post. When scientists measured the earth as it rotated, hurling towards a star and then away from a star six months later as it journeyed around the sun, expecting to see the velocity of the wavelengths of light less as it moves towards the star and more as it moves away ( velocity V being subtracted or added to C, the light speed), the EARTH DOES NOT MOVE. Period.
It was a big mystery for decades, until Einstein postulated the speed of light not changing even if the earth is moving. Time Magazine's Person of the Century Issue in 2000 featuring Einstein comes right out and says that his greatness was in being able to overthrow the conclusions of the geocentric experiments. This is all laid out in detail in the better Geocentric literature.
So as I said, the debate now comes down to the theory of relativity. Classical physics and how waves are measured is tossed into the dustbin of history in favor of relativity. There is no other explanation. Light waves do not behave like radar waves and the doppler effect you so nicely tried to explain to me. The earth is motionless, or relativity is correct.
I found this subject to be so enormously wonderful to my faith in biblical inerrancy that I passionately love it, and have spend a lot of time on other threads discussing the science in more depth. However, I think at this point unless sceptical people spend time on serious consideration of the subject ( Sagnac and Michaelson Morley on the geocentric sites is a good start) it is a waste of time to pursue it. Einstein has deluded the masses as badly as Darwin has, and posting here is time consuming and not helpful. I am certainly not about to tackle the theory of relativity on Puritan board. But I do appreciate you trying to open my eyes.
Minor addition, to clarify geocentric theory- some of them think the earth has a little spin. Not 24 hours, but a little from an asteroid hit at Noah's flood. They think the original year was 360 days and not 365.25. Not a big deal I suppose but I should be clear that they don't all think the earth is 100% motionless now.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Well that's strange, since my understanding is that astronomers have to account for this shift in their measurements regularly (e.g., barycentric correction).
Earth's orbital velocity: 30 km/s
Doppler equation:
f/f0=c/(c+ve) = 99.98999% (at most, measuring at a tangential point).
A very minuscule Doppler shift, but not zero. Your blue light will shift from say 450 nm wavelength to 450.05 nm. For reference, red light starts around 620 nm.
(note, I'm assuming stationary source)
What about Saul covering his feet in 1 Sam 24 or David sleeping with his fathers in 1 Kings 2?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I understand your purpose, but I am asking for you to provide me with your interpretation of the passage in question. How is a request for someone to explain what they think a passage of Scripture means so out of bounds? It gives one an impression that there is something to hide or that one does not want their interpretation examined. This may not be the case for you, but what else can one conclude?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Where is the evidence, literary markers for example, for the phenomological view in the Joshua account? You continue to speak to it, yet have not explained from your analysis of the passage why phenomology is even warranted. What evidence exists to support a claim that there is some accommodation to perceptions by Joshua and/or the audience? Going down this road leads to the view that all miracles can be explained away. Joshua prayed for this event, God answered that prayer, and to doubt the fact of the prayer and what happened subsequently doubts the miracle.
If we assume the inspired writers of Scripture are mistaken concerning the workings of the world, what warrant do we have to know an actual miracle has taken place? Should we assume the inspired writers of Scripture are not having their errors suppressed and that their errors have made their way into the text? What then of plenary inspiration? How then do we discern between absolute truths of Scripture and just accommodation?
Is there not a challenge to our conceptions about the earth and the sun in the Joshua 10 account? What warrant do we have to ignore the challenge?
As you can see from the above, I see a host of doctrinal issues.
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
May I ask even if the phenomological view is espoused would not a miracle be assumed also?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Setting aside the issue that demonstrating there are marks in the account to suggest phenomenology, I have to wonder about "miracles" that only occur at a phenomenological level. If what is naturally (the nature of the thing) happening is but a chimera of appearing to happen, what do we say about the supernatural? Is the supernatural simply something that appears to be "way beyond" the appearance? Further, how do we adopt a phenomenological view of the Joshua account without first knowing how Scripture presents cosmology such that we can then claim something is appearing to happen? For example, Scripture defines the earth as round and the sun moving about relative to the earth. Unlike science, which is ever evolving and resolving past contradictions as it makes new discoveries, Scripture is not evolving (i.e., it is closed) so we should not expect to find contradictions in our closed canon.
Logan- I don't know the answer but I do know that the astrophysicist PhDs who are geocentric probably address it somewhere. I don't feel like looking around online.
I can say that if the measurement and shift was enough to prove heliocentricity, there would have been no need for Einstein's theory of relativity to solve the proofs that the earth is at rest.
Perhaps the minuscule amount of movement is related to the theory that the year was 360 days at creation and either at the fall or the flood there was a minuscule amount of change to throw us into a 365.25 day year? Just speculating, I have no idea.
I can say that if the measurement and shift was enough to prove heliocentricity, there would have been no need for Einstein's theory of relativity to solve the proofs that the earth is at rest.
Perhaps the minuscule amount of movement is related to the theory that the year was 360 days at creation and either at the fall or the flood there was a minuscule amount of change to throw us into a 365.25 day year? Just speculating, I have no idea.
By the way, entirely separate from the discussion of whether or not the sun rotates around the earth or the earth around the sun, is the subject of our location in the universe. Our solar system, our galaxy, however it is structured, is right smack in the middle and the ample evidence for this is so interesting. We are not on the edge of a galaxy out in some rather mediocre region of the universe, we are right smack in the middle. The earth is special. You can be heliocentric while still knowing our general location is central, and that is scriptural.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Okay, I can grant that. But our reasoning skills are generally reliable. Why would we treat the earth so differently that we would say that although it looks like it is rotating, we cannot conclude that it probably is rotating?MW said:
One actually does feel the earth's motion; we've just gotten used to it. Other ways to feel the earth's motion is to notice hurricanes. But anyway, if you grant that one would say the merry-go-round moves because we reason from the unique phenomena associated with it that it rotates, why not for the earth, given that the earth exhibits the same unique phenomena associated with rotation?MW said:
Could you explain how homogeneity is a precarious view to modern physics? While it cannot strictly be proven (since it is an average, large scale property), there is some evidence for it (insofar as cosmological models that agree with a variety of data sets count as evidence; I myself have some skepticism here), and it doesn't seem to do modern physics any harm. And also, how is space-time precarious? It does postulate a variety of absolute quantities.MW said:
Would you agree that the relativist physics, so far as motion is concerned, is not at variance with the Scripture's teaching that the sun moves? I know you aren't a scientist and don't claim to be, but I'm not trying to ask a scientific question: I'm trying to see what exactly the teaching of the Scripture on the sun moving requires of cosmology. If a metaphysics says that the sun moves when one is located on earth, is that sufficient? If the Scriptures do not give enough information about the sort of movement that the sun has in order to critique dynamical, scientific models, then it seems one has not objection that can be raised. Unless there is more that one can gather from the biblical text, it seems to me that so long as a scientific model is not reading its model back into the Scripture and not contradicting the Scriptures' teaching (as some have made use of heliocentrism to do), there is no conflict because the Scriptures' teaching on the sun's movement is not specific enough to cast doubt on the reality of modern models of motion.
Yes, the physical location of the earth in the universe is definitely a different subject matter. That's partly why I asked early on in the thread what exactly geocentrism entails (and have asked what exactly the Scriptures' require to be believed concerning the matter).lynnie said:
Last edited:
Jonny asked, "Does it include EVERYONE or can that be taken as a figure of speech? If so, why is it different from the Joshua passage?"
I responded to this question.
Physicists brace us for the impact of counter-intuitive conclusions. Once we learned that stars don't twinkle (contrary to the song we sang as children), we likely accepted that certain sensory information was subject to a different kind of verification.
Are we still discussing my original point that common sense itself is geocentric? Are your questions aimed at confirming or denying that point? Or are you building on it to establish a case for rotation based on common sense experience?
I guess I don't feel like I do on the merry-go-round. If I did I probably wouldn't bother with the ride.
Note what Stephen Hawking said in his Brief History of Time (relative to isotropy but still relevant),
In other words, the principle is held and utilised for the express purpose of ensuring we do not take an advantaged geocentric viewpoint.
The same applies to space-time with a little variation. Space-time is ahistorical. You could not have meaningful history. According to the theory we are but a little pin on one corner of a day on the cosmic calendar.
It would give us sufficient reason to argue that the geocentric presentation of the Bible cannot be regarded as conflicting with science. But the "relative" square in which you then start understanding Bible history might prove costly.
No, it assumes that what Joshua knew or did not know was irrelevant. While he was speaking according to his perceptions he was speaking truly. As other passages of the Bible speak perceptually this must be regarded as an acceptable standard of truth in context. I don't adhere to this explanation as sufficient for this passage, and find it insufficient to credit that a miracle actually took place, but I can accept that it meets truth-criteria in terms of sense-perception.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Hm. You bring up some interesting points that I will need to think about before responding. So I guess we'll continue the discussion on them on my Monday. However, here are a couple points on which I can respond now.
You had mentioned that you would feel your motion on the merry-go-round though.
However, here are a couple points on which I can respond now.I affirm your point that common sense itself is geocentric, so I am adjusting my original argument to meet the technicalities. That is, I am building on that point to establish a case for rotation based on common sense experience. Not only that, but I am also building the case on our inductive reasoning skills: these skills come as part of our a priori common sense mental equipment. So both common sense experience and inductive reasoning together are being used to make a case for rotation.MW said:Are we still discussing my original point that common sense itself is geocentric? Are your questions aimed at confirming or denying that point? Or are you building on it to establish a case for rotation based on common sense experience?
I guess I don't feel like I do on the merry-go-round. If I did I probably wouldn't bother with the ride.
You had mentioned that you would feel your motion on the merry-go-round though.
Space-time is constructed so as to preserve causality, so I'm not sure why it is ahistorical or why one could not have meaningful history. So far as your second sentence, it seems to me that is additional baggage that is not inherent in space-time: rather, it is inherent with those who hold to long, cosmic ages for our universe.MW said:
Ah, this is what I thought. But if this is so, there is actually no need to search for a geocentric dynamics, since there is no conflict with science. You do mention that the "relative" square would harm one's understanding of Bible history, but I don't see why that is necessary. Relativist physics--insofar as it understand motion and the laws of physics--does not say "everything is relative." Only some things are relative: motion, what one measures as the time or distance between events. But there are also absolutes that are preserved, and as noted, causality is preserved (and the ordering of events that could possibly be causally connected is absolute), so history is still meaningful.MW said:
Are we allowing or disallowing the luminiferous ether?
I guess you have to preserve causality, otherwise there would be no science. But the philosophers of science like Hawking recognise space-time's dependence on ideology and its importance for making our history insignificant -- what might be summed up in Sagan's "lost in space" metaphysics. And I can see important connections with "big-bang" cosmology (I had almost said "theology," and probably wouldn't be far off since it requires deification of the creature).
I'm currently reading Steven Weinberg's Explain the World, and he seems to leave the door open for this approach.
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
Aren't I correct that even if science operates with space and time in a relative manner, that does not exclude the fact that there might also be absolute space-time? I myself do not consider them exclusive. Relativity might make certain problems easier to solve, but it seems a bit hasty to build your metaphysic on it, as some philosophers do.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Possibly. I know I was more confident of that when I was an undergrad, but I am not as certain now. The difficulty is how much metaphysics does a dynamical theory require of us? However, one could always take a non-realist stance, and the question won't matter anymore. I will say though that relativity defines time and space in an operational manner (i.e., time is what clocks measure; space is what rods measure). That might leave some wiggle room for a distinction between philosophical space and time and the relativistic space-time; at the very least, I think that philosophical space and time as conditions of the human understanding (or "intuitions," if you prefer) are not at odds with relativity's view of space-time.Justified said:
Edit: I suppose a distinction might be drawn between the metaphysics of the dynamics and building a metaphysics on the dynamics? The former is inherent within the theory while the latter extrapolates based on pre-conceived philosophical opinions. I suppose though this assumes dynamics are metaphysical. I have never thought about dynamics in such a way before, so I'll need to give that one some thought.
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
So if I understand what you are saying is that Joshua is simply stating he asked and saw the sun to stop...and nothing more? In other words, words there is no reason to believe one way or the other if the sun revolves around the earth or vise versa? Of course I think I am not reading you correctly and even if either thing happened, sun vs. earth revolving around one or the other, I believe either necessitates a miraculous occurrence.
- Status