Geocentrism: deja vu all over again!

[Vance]

The Bible does not teach geocentrism (that the sun and stars revolve around the earth), but at one time Christians sure believed that geocentrism was required by a literal reading of Scripture. They treated the new evidence of God's Creation, presented to them by secular science, that the earth actually revolved around the sun (heliocentrism, or Copernicanism, as the quote below calls it) as contrary to Scripture and sound theology. In short, Christians at the time looked at the scientific presentation of heliocentrism EXACTLY as Creationists now look at evolution and an old earth.

And there are still geocentrists today who believe that Christians, and Creationists in particular, have abandoned the cause the true Biblical literalism and have given in to "Man's thinking" by accepting the modern teachings of science.

Here is what they have to say:


http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm



Here is a quote:



“More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue. Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.

Sincere Creationists of whatever standing need not continue to have one foot in the anti-Bible Copernican camp where the Origin and nature of the cosmos is concerned, and the other foot in the pro-Bible Creationist camp where the Origin and nature of all life forms is concerned. Indeed, the time has arrived when Creationists must quit stonewalling the geocentrism issue and begin to look at the Biblical, historical, scientific, and logical evidence which upholds the geocentrism model. (Start HERE). All who will prayerfully and carefully look at that evidence will find that it exposes not only Copernicanism, but also the entire modern Big Bang-based cosmological paradigm! That paradigm-- whether realized or not--is the present day big gun in the spiritual warfare attempting to destroy Bible credibility and all that rests upon that credibility.”



This link provides some of the Biblical basis, from a literal reading, that “proves” geocentrism



http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm



BTW, here are quotes from two NON-Roman Catholic Christians speaking out in favor of geocentrism at the time of the controversy:



· "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

· "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther


Sounds kind of like YEC’s today!



In fact, here IS a modern YEC:



· "God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

My point is that we need to see this current debate in the proper light. Christianity was NOT damaged when it finally came around to the teachings of science and accepted heliocentrism. It also has also not been damaged by accepting evolution and an old earth (since many, many Christians do accept these now).

In 200 years (if Jesus tarries), I am convinced that we will look back on this evolution/young earth creation debate exactly as we now look back on the geocentris/heliocentrism debate. Sure, there may still be hold-outs for YEC'ism, just as there are hold-outs for geocentrism. But Christianity will still move forward and prosper!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have been to fixedearth several times and have posted the links to it as well. but reading your quote made me aware of:

other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!)

wow......against ex nihilo as well???
sure enough, gap with a vengence: http://www.fixedearth.com/newrenew.htm

it is an interesting site, just imagine yourself in a conversation with these people, what would it take for you to persuade them or for them to persuade you?

i appreciate the anti-YEC argument that geocentricism and it's adherents pose, it is a interesting and persuasive use of both the accommodationism and appearances ideas, thanks. much better than the flat earth that i see used as well.

The best overall structure for rebuttal their arguments lies in H.Van Tills "The Fourth Day" and it's packaging metaphor.

 

[herev]

The Bible does not teach geocentrism (that the sun and stars revolve around the earth), but at one time Christians sure believed that geocentrism was required by a literal reading of Scripture. They treated the new evidence of God's Creation, presented to them by secular science, that the earth actually revolved around the sun (heliocentrism, or Copernicanism, as the quote below calls it) as contrary to Scripture and sound theology. In short, Christians at the time looked at the scientific presentation of heliocentrism EXACTLY as Creationists now look at evolution and an old earth.

And there are still geocentrists today who believe that Christians, and Creationists in particular, have abandoned the cause the true Biblical literalism and have given in to "Man's thinking" by accepting the modern teachings of science.

Here is what they have to say:


http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm



Here is a quote:



“More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue. Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.

Sincere Creationists of whatever standing need not continue to have one foot in the anti-Bible Copernican camp where the Origin and nature of the cosmos is concerned, and the other foot in the pro-Bible Creationist camp where the Origin and nature of all life forms is concerned. Indeed, the time has arrived when Creationists must quit stonewalling the geocentrism issue and begin to look at the Biblical, historical, scientific, and logical evidence which upholds the geocentrism model. (Start HERE). All who will prayerfully and carefully look at that evidence will find that it exposes not only Copernicanism, but also the entire modern Big Bang-based cosmological paradigm! That paradigm-- whether realized or not--is the present day big gun in the spiritual warfare attempting to destroy Bible credibility and all that rests upon that credibility.”



This link provides some of the Biblical basis, from a literal reading, that “proves” geocentrism



http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm



BTW, here are quotes from two NON-Roman Catholic Christians speaking out in favor of geocentrism at the time of the controversy:



· "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

· "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther


Sounds kind of like YEC’s today!



In fact, here IS a modern YEC:



· "God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

My point is that we need to see this current debate in the proper light. Christianity was NOT damaged when it finally came around to the teachings of science and accepted heliocentrism. It also has also not been damaged by accepting evolution and an old earth (since many, many Christians do accept these now).

In 200 years (if Jesus tarries), I am convinced that we will look back on this evolution/young earth creation debate exactly as we now look back on the geocentris/heliocentrism debate. Sure, there may still be hold-outs for YEC'ism, just as there are hold-outs for geocentrism. But Christianity will still move forward and prosper!

Well said, good analogy--but will definitely fall on deaf ears

 

[TwinCrier]

Well said, good analogy--but will definitely fall on deaf ears

Not at all. I find this very interesting. I would like to see what church, or doctrine taught geocentrism. It was my understanding that Columbus and Galileo both used the bible as evidence of a round Earth. I would enjoy seeing evidence that Christians made up a flat Earth theory or a listed heliocentrism as heresy.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Geocentrism is not flat-earthism.

It is the belief that the earth is central to the solar system and the sun goes round it.

 

[TwinCrier]

Geocentrism is not flat-earthism.

It is the belief that the earth is central to the solar system and the sun goes round it.

Yes, I know that, but thanks.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm confused; why introduce the shape of the earth then?

Anyway:

Luther:

There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

i.e. Heliocentrism must be wrong because the Bible says it is. Luther believes the Bible, not fallible man.

It does sound familiar, doesn't it?

 

[TwinCrier]

My wetaher man still tells me the exact time of the "sunrise" and "sunset" We still speak of these things as we see them, our prespective. It is not a claim of geocentrism to refer to the sunset, is it? Time doesn't really fly when you're having fun. When it said the sun did not go down the whole day.... well, that's true everyday, is it not?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Now you're catching on, TwinCrier. Just because it reads one way doesn't mean it should be taken literally.

 

[TwinCrier]

But I'll still call meteors entering the atmosphere "falling stars" if it's okay with ya all.

 

[Vance]

My wetaher man still tells me the exact time of the "sunrise" and "sunset" We still speak of these things as we see them, our prespective. It is not a claim of geocentrism to refer to the sunset, is it? Time doesn't really fly when you're having fun. When it said the sun did not go down the whole day.... well, that's true everyday, is it not?

No, it is not a claim of geocentrism, which is one of the reasons why the Christian interpretation of Scripture was wrong, and the scientific evidence was right. The point is simple, the Christian Church at the time, both Catholic (who condemned Galileo for his teaching of heliocentrism) and Protestant (see the quotes of Luther and Calvin) believed that Scripture, and Christian theology, required geocentrism. They also believed this because the scientific world up to that point also believed in geocentrism, just like the scientific world also believed in a young earth and fixity of species at one point.

But, in both cases, heliocentrism and evolution, when the scientific evidence began to come in to support these new conclusions, the Christian community refused to accept it because it conflicted with their interpretation of the literal, plain reading of Scripture.

You, like almost all Christians, now see that those Scriptures which, when literally read, seem to require geocentrism (see the link in the OP going to all the Scripture and theology behind this belief), can be read a different way, one that is in conformance with what we know FROM SCIENCE about how the universe works. If it were not for these scientific discoveries, however, you (and all the rest of us) would still believe in geocentrism, and still think that this is what the Bible "clearly" states.

In fact, the OP points out that many DO still hold on to this belief, in spite of all the evidence.

Sound familiar?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My wetaher man still tells me the exact time of the "sunrise" and "sunset" We still speak of these things as we see them, our prespective. It is not a claim of geocentrism to refer to the sunset, is it? Time doesn't really fly when you're having fun. When it said the sun did not go down the whole day.... well, that's true everyday, is it not?

Now you're catching on, TwinCrier. Just because it reads one way doesn't mean it should be taken literally.

If i've learned nothing else from my years studying, it is that appearances are deceiving. Modern physics is NOT common sense, but rather the result of several hundred years of carefully observation, theorizing and confirmation. Likewise with biology but it has not separated from the world of appearances and common sense nearly as much as physics has. But at the cellular and molecular biology level things are not as accessible, if at all, to untrained eyes without sophisticated equipment.

What's the point?
the Scriptures are written to Everyman, at the level of common sense and appearances, accommodated to the culture and times they were originally written to. Just as the original languages are not the cultural/social complexes that we read them in (for most of us), nor is the world of common sense, unaided by sophisticated scientific equipment the world we live in. He have to understand how to bridge between these several worlds, that is the task of hermeneutics.

the hermeneutical task of 'translating' between cultures is similiar for the observation that the Bible uses geocentricism as the model of the universe, as it is for the observation that the Bible uses fixity of life and miraculous poof creation as principles for the appearance of life. The question is not if the Book uses these principles, but if an authoritative reliable message from God requires that we accept these principles as teachings, as explanations of the way things are/(or were). That is what the argument really is. Am i required, when reading that the Bible speaks as if the sun revolves around the earth, to believe this, despite my current scientific understanding that it does not.

That is the issue: what message is from God to all the ages, to all Christians in the church throughout time? Part is transmission packaging, the things that are necessary to get God's thoughts into written and later into human minds, culture, history, linguistics etc.. Science at some level is required, but science is not static.
Part is message, teaching, thou shall type of communication. This is timeless and is essentially static, not how it is worked out in a society, but the fundamental message.

the question is unwrapping Scripture and understanding that the packaging material is not the message we are to take home from God to our hearts, to believe and to act in the world with.

---
more post posting edit:

There seems to be two major ways of looking at this accommodation after the church has seen it.

the first is to deny that the Scripture teaches it. simply to change interpretation and deny that it was ever different. This is what happens with flatearthism. Deny that the Bible speaks this way, and deny that it was ever interpreted this way. The second is to change the interpretation and say that this is just a better way of interpreting hazy passages. Essentially saying that the verses could have been interpreted either way, and now we are going with heliocentricism.

The right way is to understand that the interpretation of Scripture does and will change through time. This doesn't mean that God changes, or that the Scriptures change. People change, cultures change, understanding changes. We do not read the NT with 1st century Greek, or Roman or Hebrew eyes/minds. Nor can we.

What we wish to perserve is a reliable, authoritative transmission of information from the Deity. How do we do this within the framework built by Scripture?

 

[notto]

My wetaher man still tells me the exact time of the "sunrise" and "sunset" We still speak of these things as we see them, our prespective. It is not a claim of geocentrism to refer to the sunset, is it? Time doesn't really fly when you're having fun. When it said the sun did not go down the whole day.... well, that's true everyday, is it not?

But why didn't the sun go down? Was it because God commanded the earth to stop or the sun? If it was simply a matter of perspective, why would God command the sun to stop moving when what really needed to happen was for the earth to stop revolving? Why don't the versus tell us that the Lord called on the earth to stop revolving?

 

[TwinCrier]

No, it is not a claim of geocentrism, which is one of the reasons why the Christian interpretation of Scripture was wrong, and the scientific evidence was right. The point is simple, the Christian Church at the time, both Catholic (who condemned Galileo for his teaching of heliocentrism) and Protestant (see the quotes of Luther and Calvin) believed that Scripture, and Christian theology, required geocentrism. They also believed this because the scientific world up to that point also believed in geocentrism, just like the scientific world also believed in a young earth and fixity of species at one point.

But, in both cases, heliocentrism and evolution, when the scientific evidence began to come in to support these new conclusions, the Christian community refused to accept it because it conflicted with their interpretation of the literal, plain reading of Scripture.

You, like almost all Christians, now see that those Scriptures which, when literally read, seem to require geocentrism (see the link in the OP going to all the Scripture and theology behind this belief), can be read a different way, one that is in conformance with what we know FROM SCIENCE about how the universe works. If it were not for these scientific discoveries, however, you (and all the rest of us) would still believe in geocentrism, and still think that this is what the Bible "clearly" states.

In fact, the OP points out that many DO still hold on to this belief, in spite of all the evidence.

Sound familiar?

Yes, some do, but I am neither a Calvin, Luthern or Catholic. I do not believe in geocentrism but I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. I have not seen any evidence convincing me otherwise.

 

[TwinCrier]

But why didn't the sun go down? Was it because God commanded the earth to stop or the sun? If it was simply a matter of perspective, why would God command the sun to stop moving when what really needed to happen was for the earth to stop revolving? Why don't the versus tell us that the Lord called on the earth to stop revolving?

The verse simply stattes that the sun stopped moving across the sky and that God was the cause of it. When God made the shadow move backwards on the sundial as a sign to Hezikiah, it was a miracle. The scripture states that the sun was moved 10 degrees. This doesn't mean the sun had to literally move (an 10 degrees would have been cataptropic if it did) but the sunlight that hit the dial was moved 10 degrees. Just as we say the sun set, we realize that the sun doesn't do anything.

 

[Vance]

Yes, some do, but I am neither a Calvin, Luthern or Catholic. I do not believe in geocentrism but I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. I have not seen any evidence convincing me otherwise.

Yes, I know, but that is not the point of this thread.

The point is that, as a believer in heliocentrism, you are basically accepting scientific conclusions over what all Christians in the past, and some still today, regard as the plain, literal reading of Scripture.

The point is that everyone other than pure geocentrists have allowed the discoveries of science to inform and influence their interpretation of Scripture and even has caused them (including yourself) to adopt a less literal reading of Scripture to conform to that scientific information. Now, of course, you don't even realize that you have done this because you have always known the truth of the scientific propositions, so you read the Scripture in a way that made sense given your scientific knowledge. There can be no doubt that if you read those Scriptures 400 years ago, you would be JUST as convinced they could ONLY be speaking of geocentrism as you are now that convinced that Scripture can ONLY be speaking of a special creation in six literal days.

In short, you would have believed this:

http://www.fixedearth.com/Size and Structure Part I.htm

Similarly, if you had grown up convinced of the truth of evolution and an old earth, you would naturally (and quite easily) read Genesis 1 and 2 in a way that made sense given your scientific knowledge.

Currently, we are in exactly the position that Christianity was in, say, the mid-1700's or so, when more and more Christians were coming to accept heliocentrism and had simply realized that their literal reading of Scripture had been mistaken, while some others were holding out, saying that the literal reading was still correct and insisting that science was just trying to prove the Bible wrong.

 

[TwinCrier]

But I DID grow up convinced of the truth of evolution and an old earth. Only when I scrutinized the evidence for evolution did I find it lacking. I adnmit I defaulted to creationism because it was supported by the bible and I had become a bible believer, but I did not set out to prove the bible. My faith in evolution was shattered when I looked at the evidence with skepticism.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But I DID grow up convinced of the truth of evolution and an old earth. Only when I scrutinized the evidence for evolution did I find it lacking. I adnmit I defaulted to creationism because it was supported by the bible and I had become a bible believer, but I did not set out to prove the bible. My faith in evolution was shattered when I looked at the evidence with skepticism.

i have never met anyone who moved from an evolutionary position to a YECist, could you give a persuasive piece of the argument that you found. or better yet start a new thread and explain the process you went through. even in creationist protected forum if you are more comfort there. my interest is in the data that you found persuasive.

for instance: when i started my study on the issues in CED(creation evolution design) i was OEC. i found the data on the GLO pseudogene and the extra centrosome and telemeremic sequences within gene 2 overwhelming evidence that the chimp-man kind boundary does not exist.

 

[notto]

The verse simply stattes that the sun stopped moving across the sky and that God was the cause of it. When God made the shadow move backwards on the sundial as a sign to Hezikiah, it was a miracle. The scripture states that the sun was moved 10 degrees. This doesn't mean the sun had to literally move (an 10 degrees would have been cataptropic if it did) but the sunlight that hit the dial was moved 10 degrees. Just as we say the sun set, we realize that the sun doesn't do anything.

I literal, plain reading of the scripture tells us that the Lord (or Joshua) told the sun to stand still, and it did. The Lord did not say, earth stop revolving.

Joshua 10: 12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.

 

[Vance]

But I DID grow up convinced of the truth of evolution and an old earth. Only when I scrutinized the evidence for evolution did I find it lacking. I adnmit I defaulted to creationism because it was supported by the bible and I had become a bible believer, but I did not set out to prove the bible. My faith in evolution was shattered when I looked at the evidence with skepticism.

My question would be whether you began scrutinizing the evidence before or after you became a Bible believer. And, of course, what sources you used to scrutinize the evidence.