Is Heavencentrism.....

[Calminian]

.... or perhaps better put, cosmocentrism, the most accurate literal view of scripture? There's been an effort to paint the Bible as geocentric, but this doesn't square really on any level biblically. In fact, if modern science discovered the earth to be geocentric, some serious theological problems would arise. Why would God's domain rotate around man's domain? Just wouldn't make any sense.

Matt. 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Heaven is where God dwells and the Bible is certainly God-centered. It's also the domain of angels.

I think modern observations, made possible through modern telescope technology, actually support a literal (that is exegetical) reading of Genesis. Surely none of you disagree? :o

When I look at the beauty of distant galaxies up close, it's breathtaking. Angels, no doubt, dwell in these beautiful place. Why wouldn't they?

 

[juvenissun]

.... or perhaps better put, cosmocentrism, the most accurate literal view of scripture? There's been an effort to paint the Bible as geocentric, but this doesn't square really on any level biblically. In fact, if modern science discovered the earth to be geocentric, some serious theological problems would arise. Why would God's domain rotate around man's domain? Just wouldn't make any sense.

Matt. 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Heaven is where God dwells and the Bible is certainly God-centered. It's also the domain of angels.

I think modern observations, made possible through modern telescope technology, actually support a literal (that is exegetical) reading of Genesis. Surely none of you disagree? :o

When I look at the beauty of distant galaxies up close, it's breathtaking. Angels, no doubt, dwell in these beautiful place. Why wouldn't they?

Very good. I like what you said. Good thought.

 

[Paul365]

.... or perhaps better put, cosmocentrism, the most accurate literal view of scripture? There's been an effort to paint the Bible as geocentric, but this doesn't square really on any level biblically. In fact, if modern science discovered the earth to be geocentric, some serious theological problems would arise. Why would God's domain rotate around man's domain? Just wouldn't make any sense.

Matt. 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Heaven is where God dwells and the Bible is certainly God-centered. It's also the domain of angels.

I think modern observations, made possible through modern telescope technology, actually support a literal (that is exegetical) reading of Genesis. Surely none of you disagree? :o

When I look at the beauty of distant galaxies up close, it's breathtaking. Angels, no doubt, dwell in these beautiful place. Why wouldn't they?

There are certainly dozens of different literal interpretations of how the bible describes the cosmos, some geocentric, some even with a flat earth. But I agree that the Bible is God-centered and that's all that matters. God dwells in the universe and the beauty of galaxies reflects His glory.

 

[shernren]

How does this "heaven-centrism" translate into a physical description of the locations of any actual physical objects?

 

[juvenissun]

How does this "heaven-centrism" translate into a physical description of the locations of any actual physical objects?

How about the earth which is rotating around a group of superclusters?

I suspect you have the image of expansion in your mind. But is it not that a supercluster of galaxies rotate around a center? And a group of them still rotate around another center? With a expansion in mind, what is the largest galaxy group that is rotating as a whole?

 

[Mallon]

There's been an effort to paint the Bible as geocentric, but this doesn't square really on any level biblically.

Theologically, maybe not. But the surface text of the Bible certainly describes a geocentric universe. The writings of past church fathers reflects that much.

Why would God's domain rotate around man's domain? Just wouldn't make any sense.

Have you read why geocentrist Christians thought what they did about the shape of the universe? In short, they felt that if man was the pinnacle of God's creation, the universe should revolve about him.

I think modern observations, made possible through modern telescope technology, actually support a literal (that is exegetical) reading of Genesis. Surely none of you disagree? :o

I do.
I think it is eisegetical thinking to insist that the Bible was meant to be read "literally", especially as it pertains to science. These kinds of concerns were not on the minds of the early Hebrews when they penned the Scriptures. Their thoughts were of God, not science.

When I look at the beauty of distant galaxies up close, it's breathtaking.

Agreed!

Angels, no doubt, dwell in these beautiful place. Why wouldn't they?

Ummm... no comment.

 

[Calminian]

There are certainly dozens of different literal interpretations of how the bible describes the cosmos, some geocentric, some even with a flat earth. But I agree that the Bible is God-centered and that's all that matters. God dwells in the universe and the beauty of galaxies reflects His glory.

Actually there are no geocentric descriptions of the cosmos in the Bible. There are movements described with the earth being a point of reference, but this is necessary with all communication about movement. Sunset and sunrise are perfectly valid correct terms that even modern astrophysicists use. When a police officer yells "stop!" he is using the land as a point of reference. When we tell our kids to sit still in the back seat of the car we're using the back seat as a point of reference. We are not telling them to jump out of a moving car, nor step off a moving earth, nor a moving solar system, nor galaxy, etc.. All of the ostensible proof texts for geocentrism falter on this fallacy.

 

[gluadys]

Actually there are no geocentric descriptions of the cosmos in the Bible. There are movements described with the earth being a point of reference, but this is necessary with all communication about movement. Sunset and sunrise are perfectly valid correct terms that even modern astrophysicists use. When a police officer yells "stop!" he is using the land as a point of reference. When we tell our kids to sit still in the back seat of the car we're using the back seat as a point of reference. We are not telling them to jump out of a moving car, nor step off a moving earth, nor a moving solar system, nor galaxy, etc.. All of the ostensible proof texts for geocentrism falter on this fallacy.

Does that include the references to the sky as a solid dome above the earth (i.e. a firmament)?

 

[Calminian]

Does that include the references to the sky as a solid dome above the earth (i.e. a firmament)?

The solid dome theory is also not supported in scripture but has nothing to do with geocentrism.

 

[Paul365]

The solid dome theory is also not supported in scripture

This just depends on how "literal" you interpret scripture:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven."

The firmament must have been pretty solid for keeping the water above it, and carrying all the stars that God fixed to it later on. All this, of course, only when you interpret it this literal that God made a real firmament.

 

[Calminian]

This just depends on how "literal" you interpret scripture:

Actually that's another misnomer. No one believes scripture should always be interpreted literally. Speech both modern and ancient just doesn't work that way. The goal is to approach it exegetically, that is, allow the writers themselves to indicate whether something is literal or not.

Regarding this much quoted verse, there's nothing in it indicating a solid dome. It's more wishful thinking than anything and most who push such an interpretation always limit themselves to the KJV. Here are two very reliable versions with a rending that no one seems to want to talk about.

Gen. 1:6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the second day. (NIV)

Gen. 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (NASB)