Is Geocentricity Scriptural?

[shernren]

Since geocentricity has come up at the Creationist-only forums I think it's about time to raise the issue here ... to YECs, do you see any Scriptural boundary between YECism and geocentricity? In other words, are there any Scriptural reasons for you not to believe in geocentricity?

And if not, why don't you believe it?

 

[Pats]

I've never studied or been taught much at all about geocentrism. I'm looking forward to seeing more thoughts on it.

 

[shernren]

me too. Too bad the site LionOfGod posted was chockfull of pdf's ... gave my mom's ancient laptop a heart attack but there was another thread here started by a geocentrist:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2551753-why-i-am-a-geocentrist.html

I'll be forthright with my views: I don't see any scriptural boundary between geocentricity and YECism, and so geocentricity can only be rejected on scientific grounds, in which case rejecting it is as much an act of "reading science into the Bible" as any other.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Reading the geocentric websites is a worthwhile exercise. They're relationship with the YEC's mirrors the YEC relationship with OEC. Same arguments, same issues, rather interesting.

The fundamental issue with both geocentrics and with YECism is if the science of the Bible is being taught or being used to communicate. If it is being taught then it is binding in some way on all believers, if it is being used then it is noted in exegesis and discarded before application.

for example, are we to understand that mental illness is caused by demons? If we see a person acting as the demon possessed did, should we call a exorist or a doctor?

this is exactly the same issue with Gen 1 and the order and mechanism of Creation, and with Joshua and the sun standing still. The often used explanation is that these things are naive observational terms, not science. This is just a way around the problem without addressing it directly. The issue is how an authoritative document is re-interpreted as the material basis of societies change over the millennium.

There are several options.
The geocentric is to interpret everything possible as binding and applicable.
The YECists is to accept astronomy but not geology or biology.
H. Vantill uses the idea of packaging and envelopes to distinguish between the message and how it is packaged in order to get to us.
J.Calvin uses the idea of anthropomorphic accommodation to explain how God uses human language and observations without forcing those explanations on everyone subsequent to them.

In any case, it is a good issue-geocentricism- to look at carefully and understand what is going on.

 

[jereth]

I am a geocentrist. I believe that the earth is at the centre of the universe. Furthermore, I am an "anthropocentrist". I believe that mankind is at the centre of the universe. This is what Genesis 1, and the entire Bible, teaches. Anyone who disputes this obviously hasn't read the Bible properly.

Of course, the Bible's geocentricity and "anthropocentricity" are theological in nature, not scientific. That is, the earth and mankind are at the centre of the universe in God's eyes. The fact that he sent his very own Son here is proof of this. But the earth is not at the centre of the universe in some kind of spatial or geometric way. Geometrically, the universe does not have a centre. Albert Einstein figured that out.

 

[philadiddle]

I think the whole concept of geocentricity is ridiculous. If the earth was fixed and unmoving, what would that be relative to? If everything was revolving around the earth, we would see the gravitational effects in the universe. The way the stars and galaxys grew together/apart would be predictable based on the laws of physics. But we don't observe that, so the question can put on the shelf with flat earth "theory". As far as whether or not it's scriptural, that's like trying to find out if flat earth is scriptural. You could turn whatever passages you want into support for your view, but it's all irrelavant because science has disproved it.

 

[philadiddle]

Of course, the Bible's geocentricity and "anthropocentricity" are theological in nature, not scientific. That is, the earth and mankind are at the centre of the universe in God's eyes. The fact that he sent his very own Son here is proof of this. But the earth is not at the centre of the universe in some kind of spatial or geometric way. Geometrically, the universe does not have a centre. Albert Einstein figured that out.

i partially agree with you. We are the center of God's attention and the purpose for the universe. This doesn't carry over into physics and science. It doesn't mean the earth is stationary. Like you said, it's theological, not scientific.