What geocentrists say . . .

[Vance]

Since this has come up again, here is what I have presented earlier about geocentrism:

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!

 

[TwinCrier]

And in 200 million years we will have evolved into a whole new species and no longer be human. I think a better comparison would be to homosexuality. As it has become more and more acceptable for people to hold to this lifestyle or believe it is tolerable, the more hostility will be expressed against those who continue to hold to the traditional view.

 

[Vance]

And in 200 million years we will have evolved into a whole new species and no longer be human.

Not if God does not want us to.

And, of course, I don't think we will be here on this present earth long enough for that to happen.

 

[Vance]

A bump since geocentrism has come up again.

 

[YahwehLove]

The bible doesnt teach clearly that the earth is flat or a geocentric universe.

It DOES however, teach very clearly a 6 literal day creation.

That men somewhere down the line read too much into some passages and come up with geocentricity and Discworld and were wrong, does in no way nullify that the bible DOES clearly teach 6 literal days

Since this has come up again, here is what I have presented earlier about geocentrism:.................bate. 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!

 

[California Tim]

The bible doesnt teach clearly that the earth is flat or a geocentric universe.

It DOES however, teach very clearly a 6 literal day creation.

That men somewhere down the line read too much into some passages and come up with geocentricity and Discworld and were wrong, does in no way nullify that the bible DOES clearly teach 6 literal days

I second this. It is time to move on past this rather ineffectual "geocentrism" argument as proof that other plainly written passages should be perpetually held hostage to secular science. There comes a point where one needs to compare apples to apples and it's time again. The Bible never sponsored the geocentrist position nor the flat earth, but does plainly describe, in great detail the literal process of creation.

I would only ask the naysayers one question:
IF the Bible meant to convey that all we see was created in 6 literal days, and that evolution was not a process used to create the species and that Adam was a literal man, created in his mature state- Then what did the Bible leave out that you feel it should have stated to clarify that point?

In otherwords, what is missing from the Genesis account (what did it neglect to say) to verify itself as a narrative historical account and discredit evolution in your opinion?

 

[Vance]

What it left out was a historican narrative literary style.

Which is to be expected, since at that time, they did not write historical narratives like you guys are talking about. So, why in the world would we expect Genesis 1 and 2 to be such?

The only reason you do is that this is predominantly how we write about the past NOW. And, so when you see someone writing about the past, you automatically assume that that is what they were doing as well. This makes no sense whatsoever.

And, when you say it is apples and oranges because the Genesis 1 and 2 texts are so "clear" and "obvious", you are simply begging the question, and have never gotten past that point and on to providing arguments for your position on the question at issue. All you do is fall back on "but it is written clearly!" which is not an answer at all when it is not clear to the person you are talking to.

And, again, the Scriptures and theology which argues in favor of geocentrism was clear and obvious to Christians for thousands of years, so they might take some offense to hear that you so easily dismiss their own interpretation. Christians, as shown above, felt strongly enough about it to speak out, and to even condemn Galileo as a heretic.

Tell the folks at the site linked above that they are talking apples to your oranges.

What you guys need to realize is that we view your reading of Genesis 1 and 2 EXACTLY the way you view the geocentrists' view (and possibly how THEY view the flat-earthers).

 

[YahwehLove]

What it left out was a historican narrative literary style.

are you kidding?
Genesis doenst appear as anything other than pure history book, cover to cover.

Which is to be expected, since at that time, they did not write historical narratives like you guys are talking about. So, why in the world would we expect Genesis 1 and 2 to be such?

because of the effort to define a literal day then show that it is being used .

And, when you say it is apples and oranges because the Genesis 1 and 2 texts are so "clear" and "obvious", you are simply begging the question, and have never gotten past that point and on to providing arguments for your position on the question at issue. All you do is fall back on "but it is written clearly!" which is not an answer at all when it is not clear to the person you are talking to.

But what the scriptures SAY?
They say 6 days.
They do not say ''flat earth'' or show clearly that the universe revolves around the earth.

And, again, the Scriptures and theology which argues in favor of geocentrism was clear and obvious to Christians for thousands of years, so they might take some offense to hear that you so easily dismiss their own interpretation. Christians, as shown above, felt strongly enough about it to speak out, and to even condemn Galileo as a heretic.

The bible does not show a geocentric universe.
THEOLOGY may have argued the issue, the bible did not.

What you guys need to realize is that we view your reading of Genesis 1 and 2 EXACTLY the way you view the geocentrists' view (and possibly how THEY view the flat-earthers).

Not by a long shot.
I keep hearing people say it teaches flat earth.
Chapter and verse please where it says clearly that the earth is flat.

It doesnt.
Someone went a little hogwild with the word ''circle'' thats about it.

It does teach a very clear and literal 6 day creation.

 

[versastyle]

are you kidding?
Genesis doenst appear as anything other than pure history book, cover to cover.

Do you know of any recent history books that talk about talking snakes, trees that give you knowledge and the ability to live forever?

 

[California Tim]

Do you know of any recent history books that talk about talking snakes, trees that give you knowledge and the ability to live forever?

I'm not sure, since the tone of your voice cannot be conveyed, what you are trying to say here. Do you feel a talking snake is impossible, and therefore proof Genesis is not literal?

 

[versastyle]

I'm not sure, since the tone of your voice cannot be conveyed, what you are trying to say here. Do you feel a talking snake is impossible, and therefore proof Genesis is not literal?

No, my point is, the way history is conveyed now, does not equal the way history was written then, and we should adjust our methodology of reading old history books, especially those written in a time when they thought stars were embedded in the sky, as such.

 

[Vance]

are you kidding?
Genesis doenst appear as anything other than pure history book, cover to cover.

No, I am not kidding in the least. Are you saying that Genesis 1 and 2 are written in the same literary style as Acts, which is meant to be an historical narrative? Is it even written the same as Chronicles?

It is only a modern mind, which insists that there is something more valid about historical narrative than figurative literary styles as a means of conveying concepts, that would think Genesis 1 and 2 is a historical narrative. You see only historical narrative as being "true" and "trustworthy" and since you believe that Scripture is true and trustworthy (which it is), you have to believe it is historical narrative.

because of the effort to define a literal day then show that it is being used .

Which is also entirely consistent with what a writer would do if it was figurative, so that is not enough on its own.

But what the scriptures SAY?
They say 6 days.
They do not say ''flat earth'' or show clearly that the universe revolves around the earth.

But that is still begging the question since the issue is whether it was meant to be read literally or figuratively. The Bible also said very clearly that the SUN stood still, not that the EARTH stood still. Now, what is the plainest and simplest reading of that text to someone without a knowledge of what the sun and earth actually do?

And Genesis 1 describes the Earth being created and then the sun and stars being created FOR the earth, as lights. The earth first, everything else AROUND it. Theologically, it was (and is for some) heretical to think that the earth was described that way, but is really just one of many planets revolving around the sun, and that the stars are just other suns in other galaxies, etc, etc. It describes the earth being created exactly as ancient near eastern people thought it was, a kind of "snowglobe" with a solid firmament dome over the top.

The bible does not show a geocentric universe.
THEOLOGY may have argued the issue, the bible did not.

Wrong, the Scriptures are all there, and I agree that they need to be re-read in the light of modern knowledge, but they were still clear enough to create an uproar within the Body of Christ when someone told them their reading was wrong.

Not by a long shot.
I keep hearing people say it teaches flat earth.
Chapter and verse please where it says clearly that the earth is flat.

My point is that we view your position the way that you view geocentrist positions.

 

[YahwehLove]

Do you know of any recent history books that talk about talking snakes, trees that give you knowledge and the ability to live forever?

What is your point?
It wasnt written today.

and what recent books tell us that a man-god came from the sky to sacrifice himself to himself for our wrongdoing?

 

[YahwehLove]

I'm not sure, since the tone of your voice cannot be conveyed, what you are trying to say here. Do you feel a talking snake is impossible, and therefore proof Genesis is not literal?

talking donkeys too, I assume.

funny talking snakes must be parable yet men walking on water and rising from the dead is not.

 

[versastyle]

funny talking snakes must be parable yet men walking on water and rising from the dead is not.

Contemporary brother, contemporary.

 

[California Tim]

But that is still begging the question since the issue is whether it was meant to be read literally or figuratively. The Bible also said very clearly that the SUN stood still, not that the EARTH stood still. Now, what is the plainest and simplest reading of that text to someone without a knowledge of what the sun and earth actually do?

I hate to give the impression I'm picking on you Vance, but you asked the question, so here's the answer:

Even though you know today what the Earth does in relationship to the Sun, if the Sun stopped in the sky, could you say "The "Earth Stopped" conclusively? Without any other evidence?

What about the orbit around the sun? Even while the Sun appeared to stop, you could not conclusively say the Earth stopped. However imperceptible, it had to rotate a fraction to preserve the orientation of the Sun in the sky as the Earth continued it's orbit. Or you might suggest the orbit ceased along with the rotation I suppose - but wouldn't all be so much easier if you simply stated what you saw - "The Sun stood still"? In fact, without all the related evidence, that's the only accurate thing that could be declared.

 

[YahwehLove]

No, I am not kidding in the least. Are you saying that Genesis 1 and 2 are written in the same literary style as Acts, which is meant to be an historical narrative? Is it even written the same as Chronicles?

It is only a modern mind, which insists that there is something more valid about historical narrative than figurative literary styles as a means of conveying concepts, that would think Genesis 1 and 2 is a historical narrative. You see only historical narrative as being "true" and "trustworthy" and since you believe that Scripture is true and trustworthy (which it is), you have to believe it is historical narrative.

Hmm. lets see

Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
(Gen 16:1-16)

Looks historical to me.

But that is still begging the question since the issue is whether it was meant to be read literally or figuratively. The Bible also said very clearly that the SUN stood still, not that the EARTH stood still. Now, what is the plainest and simplest reading of that text to someone without a knowledge of what the sun and earth actually do?

So you have what, one passage that says the sun stood still?
That has to be literally taken if Genesis one is?
Im sorry, but you have a verse or so, and its very obvioulsy not persistant that the sun stood still.

Now if it said it over and over and over again, and laid out more detail like Genesis 1 does in defining a day, then showing that that day is used, then Id give it a little more weight.

As it stands, it (sun stading still) could be a figure of speech as no effort was put into it to show that it was not.

And Genesis 1 describes the Earth being created and then the sun and stars being created FOR the earth, as lights. The earth first, everything else AROUND it. Theologically, it was (and is for some) heretical to think that the earth was described that way, but is really just one of many planets revolving around the sun, and that the stars are just other suns in other galaxies, etc, etc. It describes the earth being created exactly as ancient near eastern people thought it was, a kind of "snowglobe" with a solid firmament dome over the top.

Where does it say they all REVOLVE around the earth?
And where does it do so as clearly as it does a 6 day creation?

 

[YahwehLove]

Contemporary brother, contemporary.

I noticed that seems to be your standard response.
Not much point in your debating this issue any longer here, is there.
seeing that like others, you can just dismiss our evidence with the wave of your hand.

At least I am TRYING to make Genesis 1 compatible with with science sees.

 

[Vance]

No, all you are doing is saying "it is clear", "it is obvious", "it is an historical narrative", etc, all of which are conclusory statements which alone are worthless.

No, it is not just one verse regarding geocentrism. Did you not go to the website and see what they are basing their position on?

And, did I say that the Abraham story was the same as Genesis 1 and 2? They are two very distinct literary styles, so why would you read them the same?

And, no, repetition of a phrase does not enhance historicity at all. In fact, it simply enhances to poetic nature of the figurative language.

 

[YahwehLove]

No, all you are doing is saying "it is clear", "it is obvious", "it is an historical narrative", etc, all of which are conclusory statements which alone are worthless.

worthless indeed

Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
(Gen 16:1-16)

No, it is not just one verse regarding geocentrism. Did you not go to the website and see what they are basing their position on?

Ive read the stuff before, ive seen the drawings to show how it works.
its not anything like Gen 1.

And, did I say that the Abraham story was the same as Genesis 1 and 2? They are two very distinct literary styles, so why would you read them the same?

And no other ''allegory'' is like Genesis one with its attention to precise detail and repetitiveness to draw attention to those details.

And, no, repetition of a phrase does not enhance historicity at all. In fact, it simply enhances to poetic nature of the figurative language.

repitition is used to draw attention to what is being said in the text.

like defining what a ''day'' is

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Gen 1:4-5)

then :
''and evening and a morning, the first day"
''and evening and a morning, the second day"
''and evening and a morning, the third day"
''and evening and a morning, the forth day"
''and evening and a morning, the fifth day"
''and evening and a morning, the sixth day"

I think that Hes trying to tell you it was REAL days there