Geocentricity

[ananda]

Well, see, the bolded phrase is one of the problems I mentioned. I don't see space as a meaningless nothingness. There is stuff there, and God must have created it for a reason. Observing the wonders of what is out there increases my awe of God.

And that is what I think is important - that God remain the focus and not us. I have no doubt God loves people because the Bible says so (isn't that a song?). I have no need to feel "special". His love is enough for me.

Well ... I'm not sure how to answer you here, because I'm not convinced you would listen to me.

Just because someone rejects some arguments as invalid does not mean they do not hear and listen, my friend.

 

[juleamager]

Finally, although many establishment scientists do not deny the validity of geocentricity, they do ignore many experiments that point to the fact that the Earth is still. If they acknowledged these experiments, they would have to deny relativity & heliocentricity, and embrace geocentricity.

The Earth is not still. It rotates, that's why we have day and night. You can even look in the sky and figure out it rotates. The clouds move. People who have gone to space have seen that the Earth rotates. Scientists have even estmated how fast the Earth is moving.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just because someone rejects some arguments as invalid does not mean they do not hear and listen, my friend.

Yes, but neither does rejecting without addressing an opponent's argument constitute listening. I'll be honest. I followed the discussion for awhile, but by the time I posted my first response, I had tuned out both sides.

I'll try a question*, then. What do you consider more reliable: the Bible or science?

- - -

*Note: I actually have a series of questions for you, but I don't know the best way to proceed. If it seems better to just lay everything out at once, we can try that as well.

 

[ananda]

The Earth is not still. It rotates, that's why we have day and night. You can even look in the sky and figure out it rotates. The clouds move.

I believe that the Earth is still and it is the rest of creation that is moving. The sun is rotating around the earth, and that causes day and night. The clouds have nothing to do with the Earth moving or not.

People who have gone to space have seen that the Earth rotates. Scientists have even estmated how fast the Earth is moving.

I don't trust them, and other scientists have conducted experiments that showed that the Earth is not moving.

 

[ananda]

Yes, but neither does rejecting without addressing an opponent's argument constitute listening. I'll be honest. I followed the discussion for awhile, but by the time I posted my first response, I had tuned out both sides.

I'll try a question*, then. What do you consider more reliable: the Bible or science? - - -

*Note: I actually have a series of questions for you, but I don't know the best way to proceed. If it seems better to just lay everything out at once, we can try that as well.

Have I rejected your argument without addressing it?

I consider Scripture to be more reliable.

 

[Resha Caner]

Have I rejected your argument without addressing it?

As I noted in my first post, others have basically said what I would have said. I saw your replies. It may not be your intention, but you give the impression of a foregone conclusion. Maybe you will prove that impression wrong as we move forward. I'd be more than happy to change what I said if that is the case.

I consider Scripture to be more reliable.

Then we are in agreement on that, but I will add a few clarifications. First, my trust is placed in God's Word. The Bible, as a book, can be distorted, as has been demonstrated in the translations/commentaries of Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, Joseph Smith, Isaac Asimov, and a host of others. So, while I believe God's Word is active even today, and God can penetrate the fog of human inadequacy to deliver his message, some coopt the Bible to deliver false messages. Maybe the best example of that is Satan himself (Matt 4:1-11). So, we need to test the spirits (1 John 4:1).

Since there is a disagreement here, we need to do a little testing ... not that I'm implying someone here has an evil spirit.

So, next question(s). Even though God's Word is trustworthy, would the things you hear from other sources (e.g. science) ever cause you to ask yourself if your interpretation might be wrong?

The flipside question as well: Should it cause a scientist to reconsider his conclusions if it seems they conflict with the Bible?

 

[ananda]

Even though God's Word is trustworthy, would the things you hear from other sources (e.g. science) ever cause you to ask yourself if your interpretation might be wrong? The flipside question as well: Should it cause a scientist to reconsider his conclusions if it seems they conflict with the Bible?

Absolutely to both.

 

[Resha Caner]

Absolutely to both.

Again, I agree. But this leads to an interesting philosophical issue. When revisiting those things, what do you assume needs to be questioned? Is it the data or the method? It seems opposites are applied.

In one case we assume the "data" (the Bible) is correct, and the method (the interpretation) is wrong. In the other case, we assume scientific method is correct and the data is wrong. So what happens when we try to bring those together? The scientist ends up challenging one of the most fundamental beliefs of the Christian. And, likewise, the Christian ends up challenging the most fundamental belief* of the scientist. The result is incommensurability: people talking at each other rather than to each other.

So, rather than going that route, let's try something different. Since you think Scripture is the more reliable, let's consider Scripture first.

Do you think Scripture ever uses poetic phrasing, such that it should not be taken literally?

- - -

*Note: Of course a scientist will object to calling it "belief". Calling it an "assumption" may be the more scientific word, but the two are somewhat synonomous. Herculean efforts were made in the 19th century to establish scientific method as irrefutable (Peirce, et. al.), but the efforts failed and gave way to Popper's falsification idea, etc.

 

[Wolftone]

I wonder if there are any geocentrists here?

Without bothering to read the comments on the rest of this thread, geocentricity is absolute nonsense. This sort of claptrap damages the image and credibility of Christianity.

It is a provable and undeniable scientific fact that the Earth and it's sister planets orbit our star, the Sun. Trying to argue otherwise makes fruitloops of us all and opens up our faith to ridicule.

How about a flat Earth?.......anyone??

 

[ananda]

Again, I agree. But this leads to an interesting philosophical issue. When revisiting those things, what do you assume needs to be questioned? Is it the data or the method? It seems opposites are applied.

In one case we assume the "data" (the Bible) is correct, and the method (the interpretation) is wrong. In the other case, we assume scientific method is correct and the data is wrong. So what happens when we try to bring those together? The scientist ends up challenging one of the most fundamental beliefs of the Christian. And, likewise, the Christian ends up challenging the most fundamental belief* of the scientist. The result is incommensurability: people talking at each other rather than to each other.

So, rather than going that route, let's try something different. Since you think Scripture is the more reliable, let's consider Scripture first.

Do you think Scripture ever uses poetic phrasing, such that it should not be taken literally?

Yes, Scripture does use poetic phrasing. However, my approach to Scripture is this: everything should be taken as literally as possible before any other less-than-literal interpretations are considered. This is what I understand to be the conservative/fundamental approach to Scripture.

 

[ananda]

Without bothering to read the comments on the rest of this thread, geocentricity is absolute nonsense. This sort of claptrap damages the image and credibility of Christianity.

It is a provable and undeniable scientific fact that the Earth and it's sister planets orbit our star, the Sun. Trying to argue otherwise makes fruitloops of us all and opens up our faith to ridicule.

How about a flat Earth?.......anyone??

If you (or any other liberal) do not wish to review the facts in this thread (including scientific quotations from establishment scientists, including Albert Einsten!) and only wish to jump in with repetitive & unsubstantiated opinions echoed by others doing the same, please feel free to leave my thread.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, Scripture does use poetic phrasing. However, my approach to Scripture is this: everything should be taken as literally as possible before any other less-than-literal interpretations are considered. This is what I understand to be the conservative/fundamental approach to Scripture.

Hmm. That's not my understanding. I am a confessional Lutheran (LCMS), which has always been considered pretty conservative. I've always been taught that the conservative approach is to interpret according to intent.

I have to admit this is a bit odd. Usually I'm pointing out textual clues to people that indicate texts meant to be ready as history rather than allegory (such as Genesis). It doesn't often go the other way, but here we are. I'm not sure there is much point in debating it, but I would ask what you think justifies such an approach. Do you apply that to all literature? All literature should be considered literal before anything else is considered? Or is author intent more the determining factor?

That's a secondary consideration. My main question would be: What would prompt you to move on from a literal interpretation?

 

[ananda]

Hmm. That's not my understanding. I am a confessional Lutheran (LCMS), which has always been considered pretty conservative. I've always been taught that the conservative approach is to interpret according to intent.

I have to admit this is a bit odd. Usually I'm pointing out textual clues to people that indicate texts meant to be ready as history rather than allegory (such as Genesis). It doesn't often go the other way, but here we are. I'm not sure there is much point in debating it, but I would ask what you think justifies such an approach. Do you apply that to all literature? All literature should be considered literal before anything else is considered? Or is author intent more the determining factor?

That's a secondary consideration. My main question would be: What would prompt you to move on from a literal interpretation?

How is it possible to "interpret according to intent" if we cannot perfectly know the intent of the writer? We do not possess omniscience in order to do so.

If my personal experience through my senses conflict with my literal interpretation, then I will question my interpretation and move on. However, in this case, 1. a literal interpretation of Scripture states that the earth is not moving and fixed on a foundation, 2. my personal experiences tells me that the earth is not moving at millions of miles per hour, 3. scientists have completed experiments that point to the fact that the earth is not moving, and 4. modern establishment scientists do not deny geocentricity.

My question to you is, considering all those points, what is left to support your reasoning by which you reject geocentricity & the literal interpretation of Scripture?

 

[Resha Caner]

My question to you is, considering all those points, what is left to support your reasoning by which you reject geocentricity?

I'm not ready to answer you on all 4 points yet. We're not done with Scripture yet. Since it is more reliable (as we both agreed) supporting points from science do little more than challenge us. We're still assuming the "data" (the Bible) is good, and our differences lie elsewhere. We've uncovered the first difference, so let's address that before we jump too far.

But (as I said earlier) I will accelerate the process if that is what you want.

If my personal experience through my senses conflict with my literal interpretation, then I will question my interpretation and move on.

Let me ask you to clarify. Do you literally mean your personal experiences? How are those more reliable that a contextual interpretation held in common by the members of an entire church body?

How is it possible to "interpret according to intent" if we cannot perfectly know the intent of the writer? We do not possess omniscience in order to do so.

I'll start with something that might be less contentious: Luke 10:25-37. When Jesus was asked a question, did he reply with a direct "yes" or "no"? No, he responded with a story. So how is the story of the Samaritan supposed to answer the question? Is the asker supposed to seek out the literal (i.e. the historical) facts of the story to get his answer? No, such an answer indicates Jesus' intent to tell a parable. As such, the answer is allegorically contained within the parable.

Or do you disagree?

So now, consider how the passage in 1 Chronicles begins. David instructs Asaph to worship. Who does Chronicles say Asaph was? A member of the choir. What was his typical form of expression? Psalms. How often are Psalms literal? Rarely.

 

[ananda]

I'm not ready to answer you on all 4 points yet. We're not done with Scripture yet. Since it is more reliable (as we both agreed) supporting points from science do little more than challenge us. We're still assuming the "data" (the Bible) is good, and our differences lie elsewhere. We've uncovered the first difference, so let's address that before we jump too far. But (as I said earlier) I will accelerate the process if that is what you want.

I'll start with something that might be less contentious: Luke 10:25-37. When Jesus was asked a question, did he reply with a direct "yes" or "no"? No, he responded with a story. So how is the story of the Samaritan supposed to answer the question? Is the asker supposed to seek out the literal (i.e. the historical) facts of the story to get his answer? No, such an answer indicates Jesus' intent to tell a parable. As such, the answer is allegorically contained within the parable. Or do you disagree?

So now, consider how the passage in 1 Chronicles begins. David instructs Asaph to worship. Who does Chronicles say Asaph was? A member of the choir. What was his typical form of expression? Psalms. How often are Psalms literal? Rarely.

I find quite a number of literal expressions in the Psalms. What makes you choose to throw away these statements in 1Chr and the Psalms regarding geocentricity as non-literal?

As for Messiah's parable, the lesson was clearly allegorical in context, although I have no doubt that the details of the lesson was completely accurate in terms of the literal-historical facts. I have no reason to reinterpret the statements made for geocentricity in 1Chr & Psa as allegorical.

Let me ask you to clarify. Do you literally mean your personal experiences? How are those more reliable that a contextual interpretation held in common by the members of an entire church body?

Is the interpretation of the majority always right? See Mt 7:13-14.

I refuse to believe this:

The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube

Yes, the above would be an accurate representation of what the establishment would have me believe. Not a static sun with planets rotating around it. No, the sun itself is alleged to be rotating around the galaxy's core, and the galaxy itself is allegedly spinning along its own way around the vast expanse of the universe. All combined, the Earth is allegedly traveling at millions of miles per hour. The path the Earth would have to take would be very vortex-like, as demonstrated in that animation.

Yet when I look out into the sky, night after night, the constellations rise and sets in the same place. When I travel in a car (at speeds a far cry from millions of mph), the landscape is never fixed, is it? So, my personal observations do not match what the establishment heliocentrists would have me believe.

 

[Resha Caner]

I find quite a number of literal expressions in the Psalms. What makes you choose to throw away these statements in 1Chr and the Psalms regarding geocentricity as non-literal?

I rushed my reply as I had something to attend to. I suppose I should have waited because I accidentally left out a few things. It seems you accept that the passage you are quoting in 1Chr is psalmic. What I had further intended to note was that this same psalm also speaks of the sea roaring, the fields rejoicing, and the trees singing. Assuming you would grant those are not literal, you are then applying your personal judgement to pick verse by verse what is literal and what is not.

You grant me that the Good Samaritan is "clearly" a parable, but give me no reason - no comment on whether my reason is acceptable or not. Just a proclamation. Why should I accept that?

Is the interpretation of the majority always right? See Mt 7:13-14.

No, but all you have given me is your personal experience, and that is what I was driving at. My point was that you are putting yourself above everyone as the judge by saying your personal experience trumps what everyone else says. You are in a very dangerous place, my friend. I realize I will never change your mind on this issue. As I stated from the very beginning, you came into this thread making it clear that your opinion was a foregone conclusion.

But your experience is biased. There are many experiences of motion here on earth where one does not detect it. I'm not sure where you're at, so I don't know what would be available to you. Ride a boat, a train, an airplane, something where the ride can be optimized ... a car probably wouldn't work unless you're on a very smooth road.

So, take a boat as an example. Row out into the middle of a lake, then lay down in the boat, close your eyes, and wait 15 minutes. Before opening your eyes, and with no a priori knowledge of the tides but only based on what you felt, predict where you will be when you sit up and look around. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit you didn't know where you would end up. In other words, you moved but you didn't feel it.

Your senses are too easily deceived to think yourself qualified to judge all things. That concerns me much more than whether you believe in geocentricity or not.

 

[HantsUK]

If my personal experience through my senses conflict with my literal interpretation, then I will question my interpretation and move on. However, in this case, 1. a literal interpretation of Scripture states that the earth is not moving and fixed on a foundation, 2. my personal experiences tells me that the earth is not moving at millions of miles per hour, 3. scientists have completed experiments that point to the fact that the earth is not moving, and 4. modern establishment scientists do not deny geocentricity.

Yet when I look out into the sky, night after night, the constellations rise and sets in the same place. When I travel in a car (at speeds a far cry from millions of mph), the landscape is never fixed, is it? So, my personal observations do not match what the establishment heliocentrists would have me believe.

Have you never been on a train or bus stopped next to another train or bus, and seen the other one start to move backwards? Only to realise that it is you who is moving forwards. Have you never flown in a plane? When the air stewardess walks up the isle past you, does she appear to be walking at 2mph or 502mph? And how fast do you feel you are moving (in mid flight, not take off or landing)?

All the evidence is that the earth is rotating on its axis and orbits the sun. If you disagree with this, you need to come up with an alternative to gravity and Newtonian mechanics and dynamics, and for relativity (with explains the small discrepancies between observed behaviour and the classical models).

If the earth is stationary then why do geosynchronous communications satellites stay in place instead of falling back to the earth?

Under relativity, your frame of reference is arbitrary. This doesn't support geocentricity, but rather that such concepts are not relevant.

 

[ananda]

I rushed my reply as I had something to attend to. I suppose I should have waited because I accidentally left out a few things. It seems you accept that the passage you are quoting in 1Chr is psalmic. What I had further intended to note was that this same psalm also speaks of the sea roaring, the fields rejoicing, and the trees singing. Assuming you would grant those are not literal, you are then applying your personal judgement to pick verse by verse what is literal and what is not.

I do believe that the sea does roar, the fields do rejoice, and trees do sing in their own way, literally.

No, but all you have given me is your personal experience, and that is what I was driving at. My point was that you are putting yourself above everyone as the judge by saying your personal experience trumps what everyone else says. You are in a very dangerous place, my friend. I realize I will never change your mind on this issue. As I stated from the very beginning, you came into this thread making it clear that your opinion was a foregone conclusion.

Let me put it this way: Everyone is their own final judge (in this world) of everything that they know or learn from others. Many hear the judgement of the collective and accept their verdict. Others reject the judgment of the collective in favor of their own interpretation of alternative data. In either case, whether an individual 1. judges to give up their own judgment for the collective judgment of the information at hand, or 2. judges the information on his own, the individual in either case acts as their own final judge.

In the end, only YHWH and Messiah can competently judge us on our individual judgments in life.

Now I've answered your questions, perhaps you can answer mine: If my personal experience through my senses conflict with my literal interpretation, then I will question my interpretation and move on. However, in this case, 1. a literal interpretation of Scripture states that the earth is not moving and fixed on a foundation, 2. my personal experiences tells me that the earth is not moving at millions of miles per hour, 3. scientists have completed experiments that point to the fact that the earth is not moving, and 4. modern establishment scientists do not deny geocentricity ... My question to you is, considering all those points, what is left to support your reasoning by which you reject geocentricity & the literal interpretation of Scripture?

 

[ananda]

Have you never been on a train or bus stopped next to another train or bus, and seen the other one start to move backwards? Only to realise that it is you who is moving forwards. Have you never flown in a plane? When the air stewardess walks up the isle past you, does she appear to be walking at 2mph or 502mph? And how fast do you feel you are moving (in mid flight, not take off or landing)?

All the evidence is that the earth is rotating on its axis and orbits the sun. If you disagree with this, you need to come up with an alternative to gravity and Newtonian mechanics and dynamics, and for relativity (with explains the small discrepancies between observed behaviour and the classical models).

If the earth is stationary then why do geosynchronous communications satellites stay in place instead of falling back to the earth?

How do "geosynchronous satellites" stay in place while vortexing around the universe at millions of miles per hour?

Under relativity, your frame of reference is arbitrary. This doesn't support geocentricity, but rather that such concepts are not relevant.

Relativity may not directly validate geocentricity, but it allows for it.

 

[classicalhero]

I do believe that the sea does roar, the fields do rejoice, and trees do sing in their own way, literally.

Does God have a face? 1 Chr 16:11 Don't forget that God is a Spirit (John 4:24, Luke 24:39) and that no one has seen him (John 1:18)