Importance of Geocentrism

[Assyrian]

Dont put words in my mouth and go get the Strongs.

Like shernren said. You twist the plain meaning of the text beyond all recognition, and you can't even defend your claims

 

[busterdog]

Like shernren said. You twist the plain meaning of the text beyond all recognition, and you can't even defend your claims

Actually I did. It was well reasoned and well supported. All you had to do was give a little bit of recognition. Just a tiny bit. It would have given you so much more credibility.

This is why we dont discuss. We cant even get a grudging recognition of at least some reason in what is a very good argument. You all have errors to deal with.

All I can go is forgive.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps you cold provide a link to your well reasoned and supported argument. Where do any of the words Eccles 1:5 refer to womb? You just dragged it out of nowhere and claimed it was supported by Strongs.

If
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
can really mean
The sun, likewise emerges at dawn as from the womb. The next day a new sunrise is born, like a new generation.

How can the bible have any meaning at all? If the bible can mean anything it really means nothing. For TEs, while the bible often speaks in metaphor and parable, the metaphors are based on language we can actually know and understand. What is the point in being a literalist if there is no literal meaning.

 

[shernren]

And supplying "the sun emerges as if born" as a meaning for "sunrise" in Eccles 1:5 is pretty far out. I echo Assyrian's sentiments. Stuff like that makes my treatment of Romans 5:12 look conservative.

You telling Assyrian how to get a bit more credibility, busterdog?

 

[gluadys]

Tell me why this view of the writer is not even on the table, or is it: "A generation is born, ages and another generation is born to take its place. The sun, likewise emerges at dawn as from the womb. The next day a new sunrise is born, like a new generation."

What gives anyone right to read out the notion of "birth", as opposed to relative motion, out of the idioms that Solomon uses?

So, what is the passage saying about the sun? "Gee, Mr. sunrise, you sure resemble the guy who was here yesterday, who could pass for your father."

All the words attributed as references to relative motion simply offer many other meanings.

But does a principle of literalism allow for many other meanings? "Literal meaning" is usually defined as the plainest, most obvious meaning--not every meaning a word can have in every context, including metaphors.

A birth metaphor is possible--if a bit stretched--but it is in no way literal. By definition it is metaphorical. So by a principle of literal interpretation, it must be "read out". It can only be admitted if one admits a non-literal meaning.

I understand that arguments can be made out of the text for geocentrism, but the possibilities raised by the Hebrew are too obvious to ignore. We need to agree that they are there, otherwise, I think we are too far apart to continue discussing.

But not every possibility is literal. And the "birth" possibility is not even obvious as a metaphor. As Assyrian says: "What is the point in being a literalist if there is no literal meaning."

 

[shernren]

Spotted in Creationism:

Quite simply, when you tell your "friend", I will be there at 5:00 to pull out of a very deep ditch, the liberal theological use of language translates that to mean, "I will be thinking kind thoughts about you at some point."

When you tell a child, I am your Dad, and this is your Mom, who brought you into this world for the best possible life and ultimate life with Jesus, what that really means is, "Yes, we have some involvement with your conception, but you are more or less on your own, and dont get too hung up on anything I say."

Simple language is rendered all but (though not completely) worthless. There is no such thing as simple language under this view. Plain meaning is fungible and can be exchanged for subjectivity.

Pot, meet kettle ... ^^

 

[mark kennedy]

TEs are always bringing up geocentrism as a hammer against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I submit that it is nothing but a red herring and has nothing to do with either a literal on non-literal interpretation of Genesis. My point is that no matter how you see the world, geocentric or heliocentric, the meaning or message that God intended us to know of the Scripture doesn't change....

...If that's the best you can do then I'm sorry, but like I said, whether we live in a geo or helio centric world is of no importance to how we are to interpret God's Word.

It should be understood that Galileo was getting a better look at the heavens then anyone had before. What was at stake was not Biblical interpretation but Aristotelian mechanics. The Psalms are a hymn book and when speaking of the sun in the heavens it describes the glory of God being reflected in nature. I think the essential message is not unlike Paul's statement in Romans:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:20-22)​

This is sometimes referred to as the lessor light of revelation and conscience with the greater light being Christ in the Gospel. Notice the figure here is light and while it is invisible to the physical eye it is nonetheless clearly seen. When thinking about Psalm 19 you have to ask was is the underlying meaning.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 19:1​

This is repeated for 4 verses and it's a song, not an astronomical observation. As Galileo argued, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. Then there is this brief figure of speech comparing the light of revelation to the light of the sun:

which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. Psalm 19:5,6​

Then the psalmist goes on to describe the law of God. As a general rule of thumb figurative language is preceded by a 'like' or 'as' and the interpretation is found in the immediate context. The context is clearly indicating the glory of God being reflected in nature and the righteousness of God is shown in the Law. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with sound exposition of New Testament principles and has nothing to do with astronomy.

Genesis is another story, clearly there are ten sections that indicate lineages and at it's core is the geneology leading up to the children of Israel. When the Psalms makes predictive prophecy like they do in Psalm 22 is explicitly unveiled in the New Testament. When they are historical allusions to historical events that is clear within the immediate context but the Psalms are not historical narratives, Genesis is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Then the psalmist goes on to describe the law of God. As a general rule of thumb figurative language is preceded by a 'like' or 'as' and the interpretation is found in the immediate context. The context is clearly indicating the glory of God being reflected in nature and the righteousness of God is shown in the Law. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with sound exposition of New Testament principles and has nothing to do with astronomy.

Don't the content and truth of a metaphor depend on the suitability of its referents?

It is entirely meaningful for me to call something "as barren as the Sahara Desert".
It would be nonsensical for me to call something "as barren as the Amazon forest".

An unsuitable referent should destroy a metaphor, shouldn't it?

If Psalm 19 can mean the exact same thing whether the sun moves or stays still,
can not Romans 5 mean the exact same thing whether Adam is one man or many?

 

[gluadys]

Then the psalmist goes on to describe the law of God. As a general rule of thumb figurative language is preceded by a 'like' or 'as' and the interpretation is found in the immediate context.

Go find a basic book on literary figures of speech, Mark. Usually it will mention similes and metaphors in the same chapter, somewhat along these lines:

simile: a comparison signalled by the use of "like" or "as" e.g. "as white as snow" "He fought like a tiger".

metaphor: a comparison not signalled by the use of "like" or "as" e.g. "Her dress was snow-white" "He was a tiger in the ring."

Both are equally figurative as are many other literary devices.

 

[The Barbarian]

If anyone would like to support an unmoving Earth, I would be interested in seeing the explanation for the fact that it takes less energy to launch a spacecraft at low latitudes than at higher ones.

If the Earth is moving, it makes perfect sense. The speed of the Earth's rotation adds to the velocity.

If not, then it's a bit of a problem.

Anyone want to take a shot at it?

 

[Assyrian]

The heavens rotate about the earth. It is easier to launch a rocket into the heavens parallel to the rotation, rather than cut across the grain. [/Ptolemy]

 

[shernren]

If anyone would like to support an unmoving Earth, I would be interested in seeing the explanation for the fact that it takes less energy to launch a spacecraft at low latitudes than at higher ones.

If the Earth is moving, it makes perfect sense. The speed of the Earth's rotation adds to the velocity.

If not, then it's a bit of a problem.

Anyone want to take a shot at it?

Have you ever personally seen a spacecraft being launched before?

No?

I'm afraid you've fallen victim to unverifiable globularist propaganda.

[/flat earth]