The lesson of Geocentrism

[Vance]

Blueberry, you are absolutely right. The Bible does NOT teach geocentrism, and we now know that the interpretation you give is exactly correct. The point is that a plain reading of Scripture would lead anyone reading it, who does not know (or accept) what science has discovered, to believe that a geocentric universe is what is being discussed. Without knowing that the scientific truths, there was not reason to believe anything OTHER THAN the plainest and simplest interpretation. The biblical scholars at the time were not unintelligent, or not thoroughly knowledgeable when they believed that geocentrism was was the plain teaching, they were just ignorant of the scientific explanations, then later unwilling to accept them.

Similarly, without knowing the scientific truths (or being unwilling to accept them), the plainest and simplest meaning of Genesis 1 seems to be a 6 24 hour day creation, just as a fixed earth and rotating sun seemed to be the simplest and plainest reading before THAT scientific truth was known.

Now that we know the truth of heliocentrism, we can see that a different interpretation of all these verses is correct, and you pointed out the general idea of that new interpretation, which may not be the plainest and simplest reading, but it is correct. Similarly, now that we know the truth of an old earth, we should equally learn what the likely proper interpretation is on that point as well.

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

Similarly, without knowing the scientific truths...

Truths? I think you're jumping from conjectures and imaginings to "truth" a bit prematurely.

...(or being unwilling to accept them), the plainest and simplest meaning of Genesis 1 seems to be a 6 24 hour day creation,

It doesn't "seem" to be, it's what is taught. Physical geocentrism isn't taught.

just as a fixed earth and rotating sun seemed to be the simplest and plainest reading before THAT scientific truth was known.

In a plain reading of Scripture a fixed earth and a revolving sun is a non-issue. Just like when a meteorologist says, "the storm should arrive at sunrise". The issue is the storm not a "teaching" that the sun rises.

Similarly, now that we know the truth of an old earth, we should equally learn what the likely proper interpretation is on that point as well.

The fact is we don't know "the truth of an old earth" from science. The creation account gives us the specific why's & wherefore's of how God created the heavens & earth. That's its PURPOSE for being written. There are no scientific facts that sucessfully contradict any of the precise details in Genesis.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Truths? I think you're jumping from conjectures and imaginings to "truth" a bit prematurely.

It doesn't "seem" to be, it's what is taught. Physical geocentrism isn't taught.

In a plain reading of Scripture a fixed earth and a revolving sun is a non-issue. Just like when a meteorologist says, "the storm should arrive at sunrise". The issue is the storm not a "teaching" that the sun rises.

The fact is we don't know "the truth of an old earth" from science. The creation account gives us the specific why's & wherefore's of how God created the heavens & earth. That's its PURPOSE for being written. There are no scientific facts that sucessfully contradict any of the precise details in Genesis.

Except there are, and that is the problem. Isochronically derived dates of ancient rocks do not go away because we don't like them.

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

Except there are, and that is the problem. Isochronically derived dates of ancient rocks do not go away because we don't like them.

Priding yourself on being a backslider is contrary to the same infallible Word that proves your dating of rocks wrong.

 

[wblastyn]

Priding yourself on being a backslider is contrary to the same infallible Word that proves your dating of rocks wrong.

IOW "Oh dear, I can't refute any of your arguements, but I don't want anyone to know that, so I'll cause a distraction by attacking your name".

 

[lucaspa]

The fact is we don't know "the truth of an old earth" from science. The creation account gives us the specific why's & wherefore's of how God created the heavens & earth. That's its PURPOSE for being written. There are no scientific facts that sucessfully contradict any of the precise details in Genesis.

1. The PURPOSE of Genesis 1 is not the specific how God created. Rather, the purpose was to hold the faith of the Hebrews at a time when they were under considerable cultural pressure to abandon Judaism. One of the rules of interpretations is to consider the historical context. Genesis 1 was written at the end of or shortly after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonians had decisively defeated and conqueored Israel. In the thinking of the time, that meant that the Babylonian gods were more powerful (and real) than Yahweh. Genesis 1 was therefore written to hold the people in their faith by destroying the Babylonian gods.

2. You don't even need the science to find contradictions between the "precise details" in the two creation stories. There are many contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. Starting with Genesis 2:4b where the heavens and the earth are created within a single day (beyom) rather than the 6 days of Genesis 1. Now take a look at the order of creation between the 2 accounts.

3. The scientific data by 1800 was overwhelming that the earth is far, far older than 10,000 years. Once you lose a global Flood to account for geology, then you end up with an old earth. It was Christians who decided this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating." [emphases in original]

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Priding yourself on being a backslider is contrary to the same infallible Word that proves your dating of rocks wrong.

Quick! Someone call tech support - Blueberry Sponge's irony meter isn't functioning.


For your edification:

[font=Arial,Bold]I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years​

​

[font=Arial,Bold]People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears[/font]​

[font=Arial,Bold]I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum[/font]​

[font=Arial,Bold]I’m a liberal backslider and it sure is a lot of fun.[/font]​

[font=Arial,Bold]​

[/font]

Been Following these footsteps now for many a year gone by​

But you always upset someone there no matter how you try​

Well the good things they’re forgotten if a bad thing comes around​

Now all these stones are flyin’ they’re gonna knock me to the ground​

I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race​

Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face​

I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed​

But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead​

- Martyn Joseph.​

[/font]

 

[lucaspa]

I haven't seen any evidence that a plain reading of God's Word is incorrect.

What about Luke 2:1. A plain reading is that all the world was enrolled. Do you think Japanese, Zulus, and Sioux were enrolled? Why not?

How about Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5? They state in plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. Does it? How do you know?

If they hold to theistic evolution they ARE placing man's word over God's. Because that's all it is - man's word. And it's definitely in conflict with God's. However that's not "just as with Geocentrism" since the Bible doesn't teach geocentricism.

The Bible teaches that the earth does not move. For that to happen in the solar system the earth has to be in the center of it.

This is the same type of logic that was used to get the man-made theory of creationism. The Bible never states how old the earth is. It was Bishop Usher that took the geneologies, guessed at the ages of the humans in them, and came up with the idea the earth is 6,000 years old. ICR and AiG fudge that date due to counting tree rings that show some trees to be 10,000 years old. So, young-earth is man-made all the way: man-made interpretation of the Bible, man-made counting of the geneologies, man-made modification of that based on extrabiblical evidence.

The same applies to the Flood. There is nothing Biblical to indicate a violent Flood and textual evidence it was a gentle Flood that did not alter geography. However, YEC Flood Geology has a very violent Flood that alters the entire surface of the earth.

So, this supposed contrast of YEC and theistic evolution doesn't work. YEC is just as much man-made as you say TE is. Pot, meet kettle.

Man does place and always has - especially in religion - and especially in nominal christianity - placed his word over God's Word.

That's just what YEC does. See above. Thank you for condeming YEC.

Now, one thing that you are forgetting is that God wrote two books. Christians have long recognized this but YECers like to ignore God in His second book. The second book is, of course, Creation. TE's look at both books and, when they contradict, realize that it is our man-made interpretation of the Bible that must be at fault.

This again is a long-standing Christian tradition:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

It's really too bad YEC has left Christianity and God. Maybe they'll come back someday. But it looks like their human pride will prevent that.

 

[lucaspa]

Question: Is there any scientific evidence that conclusively proves that the earth is NOT in the center of the universe?
After all, we don't know the outer limits of the universe. Maybe the earth is dead center.

Heliocentrism is only about the sun being the center of the solar system. It says nothing about the universe. The Church, based on a literal reading of Scripture, had decided the earth was the center of the solar system.

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

1. The PURPOSE of Genesis 1 is not the specific how God created.

The purpose of Genesis 1 IS specifically how God created the heavens and earth.

2. You don't even need the science to find contradictions between the "precise details" in the two creation stories.

There is only one creation account and it has no contradictions in the smallest and finest of its details.

3. The scientific data by 1800 was overwhelming that the earth is far, far older than 10,000 years.

There was not a single shred of evidence that supported the myth that the earth is far, far older than 10,000 years in 1800; and there still isn't.

 

[Vance]

Blueberry, why do you say 10,000 years in particular?

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

Blueberry, why do you say 10,000 years in particular?

I didn't pick that number, the Bible skeptic I was posting to did.

 

[lucaspa]

The purpose of Genesis 1 IS specifically how God created the heavens and earth.

Denial isn't reasoned argument. It's simply burying your head in the sand. I suggest you check out Nahum Sarna's Genesis for a more detailed discussion.

Haven't you ever wondered why plants are created before the sun or the waters are divided? Check out the Enuma Elish. http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

The Enuma Elish starts out with Apsu and Tiamet as the first two Babylonian gods. They are the salt and sweetwater oceans. When Yahweh divides the waters He is creating those two types of oceans, thus destroying Aspsu and Tiamet. Marduk is the god of agriculture. Look carefully at Genesis 1. Yahweh creates herbs and trees with fruits -- agricultural plants. Marduk is the older brother of the sun goddess and moon goddess. So plants are created before the sun and moon because Genesis 1 is destroying the Babylonians gods in sequence.

There is only one creation account and it has no contradictions in the smallest and finest of its details.

Do what I did. Go to Barnes and Nobles or Borders and look thru all the commentaries and translations of Genesis on the shelves. I looked at 10. Every one of them acknowledged that there are two creation stories.

Just look at the sequence of creation. In Genesis 1 birds and animals are created first (in that order, birds first by a day), then humans with male and female together. In Genesis 2 we get one male -- Adam -- created, then the animals and birds, and then a woman. Do you actually read the Bible?

There was not a single shred of evidence that supported the myth that the earth is far, far older than 10,000 years in 1800; and there still isn't.

More baseless denial. Read the works of the people listed. Some of them are online and others you can find in libraries. Or read the summaries of their work in Genesis and Geology or The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence.

As just one example: metamorphic rocks. They simply can't be formed in the year assigned to their formation in Flood Geology. Without Flood Geology, it's obvious that they take a long time to form. First the sediments have to be laid, the sediments have to be compressed by overlying layers to form sedimentary rock, and then the sedimentary rock has to be subjected to slow heat under pressure to make metamorphic rock. That process takes millions of years.

 

[lucaspa]

I didn't pick that number, the Bible skeptic I was posting to did.

And I was quoting from ICR -- a creationist organization. So why do you agree with them? Or don't you? if not, why not?

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

There are many contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3.

I'll let God be true and you be the liar.

 

[jayebrownlee]

[mod hat on]

THings are getting a little heated in here and I think everyone should chill out a little before posting again

I will be keeping an eye on you here

Jay

[mod hat off]

 

[Vance]

Contradictions in the Bible only make God a liar if a literal interpretation is mandatory.

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

Contradictions in the Bible only make God a liar if a literal interpretation is mandatory.

Since there are no contradictions in the Bible the rest of your sentence is immaterial.

 

[lucaspa]

I'll let God be true and you be the liar.

The contradictions arise only if we have to take your literal interpretation of the Bible. It is you who are making God a liar. Why do you do that?

From Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 the Bible tells us that Elohim created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. In Genesis 2:4 the Bible tells us that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth within one day (beyom).

Now, if we worship your god of Biblical literalism, that's a contradiction.

In Genesis 1:20-27 the Bible tells us that we get birds on day 5, land animals first on day 6, and then men and women created together later on day 6.

In Genesis 2:7-22 the Bible tells us that Yahweh makes a single man, then land animals and birds mixed together, and then one woman.

Again, if we worship Biblical literalism, that's a contradiction.

I'd rather worship God than Biblical literalism. How about you?

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

The contradictions arise only if we have to take your literal interpretation of the Bible.

Your alleged contradictions are a result of your sloppy reading of the text as you demonstrate in your 2 quotes that follow:

From Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 the Bible tells us that Elohim created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. In Genesis 2:4 the Bible tells us that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth within one day (beyom).

You have misrepresented the Scripture passage in the above quote. Go back and reread Genesis 1 & 2.

In Genesis 1:20-27 the Bible tells us that we get birds on day 5, land animals first on day 6, and then men and women created together later on day 6.

In Genesis 2:7-22 the Bible tells us that Yahweh makes a single man, then land animals and birds mixed together, and then one woman.

You have misrepresented the Scripture passage in the above quote. Go back and reread Genesis 2.