My Geocentrism Challenge

[Vatis]

The 'old timers' know exactly what I'm saying.

Whether or not Pluto is a planet is a strict problem of definition, whereas heliocentrism vs geocentrism is a pretty substantial difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether or not Pluto is a planet is a strict problem of definition, whereas heliocentrism vs geocentrism is a pretty substantial difference.

It's only a matter of degrees, isn't it?

And there's more to it than what you think.

The science books had to be re-written back then, and they had to be re-written today -- (for starters).

 

[Cabal]

Only if you buy into what you hear on the Internet; and given that I don't think you could give me ½ of 1% of those, I'll call your bluff.

Fail.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot more than 190 there.

 

[Delphiki]

Nobody is ever going to look back and say "Wow, people called Pluto a planet back then... Were they crazy or something?"

Nobody is ever going to look back and say "For centuries, due to the influence of the church, scientists were often convicted, deported, and sometimes even killed for suggesting Pluto was a dwarf planet."

:lol:

AV, if Edward Current hadn't already beaten you to the character, I'd suggest you take up comedy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile, back at the OP...

 

[Cabal]

Meanwhile, back at the OP...

Yeah, we covered that.

It's on a hill. Nothing to do with geocentrism.

Fail, /thread, next.

 

[Cabal]

It's only a matter of degrees, isn't it?

This appears to be your latest catchphrase. I'm curious as to what you think it demonstrates, if anything at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, we covered that.

It's on a hill. Nothing to do with geocentrism.

Good -- then the next time someone rants about the Bible teaching geocentrism, can I qv this post as an example of needing to understanding the difference between something that is literal and something that is a figure of speech?

 

[Cabal]

Good -- then the next time someone rants about the Bible teaching geocentrism, can I qv this post as an example of needing to understanding the difference between something that is literal and something that is a figure of speech?

How could you misconstrue "up to the city" of Jerusalem when it's already established to be on a hill elsewhere in the Bible, and is clearly built in a hill in reality?

By contrast, the Bible does not clearly and unambiguously state what the shape of the Earth is at any point, and it is not something anyone at that time could readily view directly like the location of Jerusalem. And frankly, it matters little what you think is a ridiculous interpretation or not. There are those who did think it the Bible referred to geocentrism - and whether you agree with them or not, that is not acknowledging that the Bible you claim is so clear is ambiguous enough to let such a widely differing interpretation arise.

 

[AV1611VET]

By contrast, the Bible does not clearly and unambiguously state what the shape of the Earth is at any point...

We're not talking flat earth here -- we're talking geocentrism.

To get on here and say, "Hey, look! The Bible teaches geocentrism! It says right here that the sun rises, arcs overs us, then sets!" -- should be met with, "Hey, look! According to your logic, Jerusalem hovers above the earth!"

 

[Vatis]

We're not talking flat earth here -- we're talking geocentrism.

To get on here and say, "Hey, look! The Bible teaches geocentrism! It says right here that the sun rises, arcs overs us, then sets!" -- should be met with, "Hey, look! According to your logic, Jerusalem hovers above the earth!"

I think the passages in the bible which support geocentrism are:

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

 

[Split Rock]

Scientists first tell us A -- then scientists tell us B.

• A = {geocentrism, Pluto}
• B = {heliocentrism, Pluto}

Actually, no. Pluto wasn't discovered until long after geocentrism was abandoned by scientists (though not all creationists). In any case, I still don't know what you point is, or how it relates to the O.P.

 

[AV1611VET]

In any case, I still don't know what you point is, or how it relates to the O.P.

That's because you guys are playing your games, and you're just getting yourselves twisted up.

 

[Cabal]

We're not talking flat earth here -- we're talking geocentrism.

Quite correct, my bad. Sorry, I've had the flat-earth discussion this week with another literalist - there's a lot of overlap.

To get on here and say, "Hey, look! The Bible teaches geocentrism! It says right here that the sun rises, arcs overs us, then sets!" -- should be met with, "Hey, look! According to your logic, Jerusalem hovers above the earth!"

With regard to geocentrism, then - I'm not saying the Bible teaches geocentrism, i.e. that it clearly and definitely claims geocentrism is true. I'm saying that the Bible is ambiguous enough that it allows for geocentrism. The reason why this is pertinent in this debate is that people who claimed to take the Bible literally (in the same way as modern creationists do regarding Genesis 1) and use exactly the same justification for doing so got some things spectacularly wrong, like geocentrism. In that case, why should we accept one literalism but reject others when the exact same justification was used in both cases?

It matters little how illogical you personally think other literalists have been, the fact is, they did use a claimed literal interpretation of the Bible to arrive at their conclusion. It's not that the Bible literally teaches inaccurate science, it's that the Bible does not adequately point to science on such matters when any kind of literalism is used.

 

[Split Rock]

We're not talking flat earth here -- we're talking geocentrism.

To get on here and say, "Hey, look! The Bible teaches geocentrism! It says right here that the sun rises, arcs overs us, then sets!" -- should be met with, "Hey, look! According to your logic, Jerusalem hovers above the earth!"

A geocentric concept is prevalent throughout the OT. It is not based on a single passage. Vatis mentioned a few passages that fit this concept. However, the story of the creation that you put so much literal faith in certainly infers geocentricism. The earth is created first. The sun is then put into the firmament above the earth as nothing but a light. No where does it state the earth was then put into motion around that light. Later, Joshua stops the sun from moving, rather than the earth, etc. And why would the authors write about something they knew nothing about? Men wrote those passages, not your god.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the passages in the bible which support geocentrism are:

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

Isaiah 24:18
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

Job 9:6
who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.


1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Those can be individually addressed in another thread -- this thread is for those who use Psalm 19 -- (my favorite Psalm).

 

[Delphiki]

Yes.... We're playing our evil little games of knowing stuff. Please don't actually explain your little bullet points. I kind of admire it's enigmatic nature. It's kind of like I can picture it drawn in two or more colors of crayon... maybe with a small puddle of drool somewhere off near a corner. i just want to kick back and watch it confuse people (except "old timers") for my amusement.

 

[Split Rock]

That's because you guys are playing your games, and you're just getting yourselves twisted up.

Stop projecting, AVET. You are the expert on playing games here, and twisting your own logic into knots.

 

[Cabal]

We're not talking flat earth here -- we're talking geocentrism.

To get on here and say, "Hey, look! The Bible teaches geocentrism! It says right here that the sun rises, arcs overs us, then sets!" -- should be met with, "Hey, look! According to your logic, Jerusalem hovers above the earth!"

Those can be individually addressed in another thread -- this thread is for those who use Psalm 19 -- (my favorite Psalm).

Well, in that case - people should just use the other five verses that Vatis quoted if they want to show why people used the Bible to support geocentrism. They certainly didn't take them as figures of speech.

Simples

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, in that case - people should just use the other five verses that Vatis quoted if they want to show why people used the Bible to support geocentrism.

That's fine; but not here, eh?