Why I Am A Geocentrist

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

When scripture speaks of the "four corners of the earth" it is most likely referring to north, south, east and west.
There are many verses in scripture which clearly refute a flat earth. (I can't find any that refute geocentricity)

• Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
• Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
• Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
• Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
• Luke 17:31-34 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
  (This shows "In that day" and "in that night" occur simultaneously!)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. All these verses do is prove that the Earth is circular. They do not prove it is spherical, and they do not disprove that it is flat. So, the Earth is a flat circle that is traversed by the sun and the moon, wherein the moon follows the sun in an arc across the sky. Obviously there is a line, one side there is light, and on the other there is darkness, hence the fact that night and day can occur at the same time. I've never seen this line, as it always seems to occur just over the horizon. But I'm sure its there.

Once again I've caught you flat-footed in mis-interpreting the scriptures. You really do need to study these things more closely.

You are erroneously assuming that the geocentrically-derived equations would be different from the heliocentric ones. That such is not the case has repeatedly been shown in scientific papers since the turn of the twentieth century. Here are some papers proving that there is no physical difference between the Geocentric model and your Heliocentric view.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell (it's DARNED difficult to get access to a journal from the 1800s! I did find a few though) those papers "prove" that the math works in both models. However, they ALL assume that the gravitational forces are what's holding the solar system together.

In short, doing the math for a geocentric model ONLY works if you first assume that the Sun's gravity is what's keeping the Earth in orbit around the sun. THEN if you want to use the Earth as your frame of reference, you can do the math to keep the Earth as stationary no matter what. But again, it ASSUMES forces that only make sense in a heliocentric mode.

Put another way, Gravity is what keeps the planets going around the sun. Gravity is also what keeps us on the Earth. If you assume that the Earth is not moving, then you have to apply gravity differently between the Earth and sun and the other planets and the Sun. It LOOKS like all the planets (Earth included) revolve around the sun due to gravity. If you want to make the Earth the center, fine, but since all the other planets are orbiting the sun, in order to get the sun to orbit the Earth, you have to rewrite the laws of gravity to reverse the gravitational equations.

In short, where you have the Sun's gravity pulling on all the OTHER planets, you need to have the Earth pulling on the Sun with the same force. In essence, in a geocentric model, you need to flip gravity for the Earth AND THE EARTH ONLY or it doesn't work out.

Yeah, you can DO it in mathematical equations. What these papers are DOING is assuming a heliocentric model, and flipping gravity for the Earth's case ONLY so the Earth doesn't move.

There are actually cases where this trick is used for calculating orbits since the calculations can go faster if you assume the Earth is not moving. However, ALL the models (even the ones you cited) are assuming a heliocentric solar system. The geocentrism is only in the math, not in the physical system.

....
.......
..........
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




That is all

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

When scripture speaks of the "four corners of the earth" it is most likely referring to north, south, east and west.
There are many verses in scripture which clearly refute a flat earth. (I can't find any that refute geocentricity)

• Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
• Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
• Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
• Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
• Luke 17:31-34 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
  (This shows "In that day" and "in that night" occur simultaneously!)

Sincerely, Zach Doty

Click to expand...

Actually all these scriptures strongly imply that the earth is flat.


The first verse from Job says nothing about the shape of the earth and merely says that the "nothing" the earth "hangs from" is located in the north. It can apply equally to a flat or spherical earth.

The compassing of the waters in the second verse from Job, refers to drawing a circle (as with a compass) on the flat surface of the ocean. The earth (dry land) was set within this circle.

The verse from Isaiah refers to a circle which can be seen in its entirety from a point on or above it. This is not possible with a sphere. The reference to the heavens being spread over the circle like a tent "to dwell in" confirms that the image is of a tent floor which is definitely not spherical.

The verse from Proverbs again refers to the drawing of a circle on the face of the depth (i.e. abyss, ocean)--the first step in the creation of a habitable earth. Note the rest of the passage which continues the description of the creation of the heavens and earth.

As for the passage from Luke, it was known, long before the shape of the earth was known, that it could be day in one part of the world while it was night in another. They may not have had a scientific explanation for that, but they would know the fact in any case. So Luke's language does not, in itself, imply a spherical earth.

God said to slaughter all the "X" in the land according to the Bible.

Shall we go and slaughter them? "X" still exist, after all...

**sighs**

When will we Christians learn not to abuse Scripture?

A circle is 2-d. That isn't twisting anything; that's just a plain fact.

And another fact is that the ancient Hebrew cosmology is a flat earth with a vault supported by four pillars with sheol located literally underneath the Earth and heaven beyond the vault of the sky.

Another fact is that the Earth goes around the sun. We see that the sun rises because the Earth rotates as it revolves. The Bible is wrong when it comes to this bit of science, since all the evidence shows that it is wrong. Whoopie-doo that the Bible is wrong about something that has nothing to do with faith, doctrine, or salvation.

And please, drop the Bibliolatry. I do not worship a dumb and difficult book. I worship only the Father, the Word (and no, the Bible isn't the Word either...that would be Bibliolatry as well), and the Holy Spirit.

Now now, no need to be so harsh! I agree that he's quite wrong, but he's undoubtably surrounded by geocentrists -- at least the people he trusts on Biblical matters are geocentrists. It's important to be VERY clear that rejecting his interpretation of the scriptures is not in ANY way rejecting Christ!

That said, I do wish you (NarrowPathPilgrim) would respond to my objections. Perhaps you do not understand quite what a "refrence frame" is or why mathematics allows us to calculate from ANY reference frame as long as our equations are changed appropriately. In each of the cases you've cited, the math was done from a geocentrist frame of reference, but the ONLY reason the numbers work out is that the equations ASSUME a heliocentric model for the forces involved.

I'd also like to point out (again) that a sphere is NOT a circle. A sphere is three-dimensional, and a circle is two-dimensional. There never has, and never will be such a thing as a spherical circle. The Hebrew word for circle means just that -- a two-dimensional circle. If they wanted to talk about a sphere, they would have used the word that's usually translated as "ball."

Finallu, I'd like to address the passage in Timothy about "inspired" or "God breathed" (from a more literal translation). First of all, this is the ONLY verse that addresses this subject -- that I've been able to find anyway. The apostles and those that followed them assumed the scriptures to be from God, but they never ONCE wrote that the scriptures are infallable -- even when writing to newly converted Gentiles!

The term they used is "God-breathed" which loosely translated could be "inspired." However, nowhere do they even HINT that "inspired" is equivilant to "infallable." I believe, as most Christians (that I've met, read or heard anyway) that the Bible holds the truth about Christ, his resurrection, and how we can receive salvation. There are numerous cases, however, where the Bible literally contradicts itself requiring a literalist to bend over backwards inventing all sorts of extra-Biblical stuff to rationalize a perfect text.

That's clearly the subject for another thread (feel free to create one if you're interested) but it indicates again that the accounts may have been "inspired" by God, but they were not at all "dictated" by God. In fact, Paul makes this clear distinction in a few places where he instructs the early churches and says in effect, "this isn't from God, but I think xxxx would be helpful to you." If Paul makes the clear distinction between what is inspired and what is from his own reaoning, doesn't that suggest that other parts might not be directly inspired as well?

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

Believe me; if I thought the Holy Scriptures taught a flat earth I would believe it. Those verses don't blatantly say that the earth is spherical, but they imply it just as strongly, if not more strongly than any of the verses which seem to imply a flat earth.



Sincerely, Zach Doty

Click to expand...

It goes too far, IMO, to say the scriptures teach a flat earth. The bible is not a science text. But the biblical authors clearly assumed a flat earth. There are many texts which imply a flat earth and none that are inconsistent with a flat earth.

I do not agree that any passage of scripture implies a spherical earth. Quite the reverse. All of scripture was written by people whose vision of the earth was of a flat earth over which the dome of the sky was erected and it was written with that perspective in mind.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that God disabused them of their pre-scientific notions, or that this was required for them to write inspired scripture on matters not pertaining to science.

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

That is just plain untrue. A couple of them could be twisted to say that by reading the word "circle" to mean a non-spherical circle, but for the most part they would never lead a reader to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

They woould never lead anyone who studied cosmology since the second century CE to the conclusion that the earth is flat, because such people would have been taught already (under either the Ptolemaic or Copernican version of cosmology) that the earth is a sphere. So they would interpret these verses from that perspective.

But the OT writers wrote much earlier than this. For them, the flat-earth perspective was the only one available. So that is how they wrote and that is how their contemporaries would read it. They would never conclude from these passages that the earth is a sphere.

Even the NT writers do not seem to be familiar with the Greek philosophers who had discovered the sphericity of the earth. Though they may have chosen (as Milton did in Paradise Lost) to use the framework they and their readers were more familiar with, even if they had heard of the new thinking among the Greeks.

We are dealing with scripture here; words inspired by the Holy Ghost himself. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) and there has never been a time when God himself did not know the shape of the earth.

Click to expand...

Does God give all of his knowledge to every inspired writer, or only what is necessary to reveal for our good? Does the shape of the earth have anything to do with our salvation?

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

Prove it and you will get $11,000! $10,000 here and $1,000 here!

Click to expand...

I'm going to give you two choices. You offered this to the wrong person; I don't joke around. But I'm going to give you a chance to back away:

1. Either recind your offer
2. You won't like it if you do not.

We have people out in space who see the Earth go around the sun. That proves the Bible is wrong about that. And whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is wrong about a secular subject. If that makes you question your faith, then I thank God my faith is stronger than your's.

The Bible is inspired and infallible in matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation. It is a religious book, not some science/history textbook. Stop blaspheming my Bible by making it something it is not. I'd rather have some militant Atheist use the Bible as a coaster than a Christian abuse its writings.

It just occurred to me that in a geocentric model, since the Earth is not rotating, geostationary sattellites would not be able to stay geostationary. By the geocentric model, the only thing keeping them up there would HAVE to be the Earth revolving around the satellite. But since the Earth isn't moving, geostationary satellites are not possible...

What a shame since much of our communications and weather prediction satellites rely on such a thing!

gluadys said:

They woould never lead anyone who studied cosmology since the second century CE to the conclusion that the earth is flat, because such people would have been taught already (under either the Ptolemaic or Copernican version of cosmology) that the earth is a sphere. So they would interpret these verses from that perspective.

But the OT writers wrote much earlier than this. For them, the flat-earth perspective was the only one available. So that is how they wrote and that is how their contemporaries would read it. They would never conclude from these passages that the earth is a sphere.

Even the NT writers do not seem to be familiar with the Greek philosophers who had discovered the sphericity of the earth. Though they may have chosen (as Milton did in Paradise Lost) to use the framework they and their readers were more familiar with, even if they had heard of the new thinking among the Greeks.
Does God give all of his knowledge to every inspired writer, or only what is necessary to reveal for our good? Does the shape of the earth have anything to do with our salvation?

Click to expand...

BOTH of your posts are excellent! Reps!

Kepler

PaladinValer said:

I'm going to give you two choices. You offered this to the wrong person; I don't joke around. But I'm going to give you a chance to back away:

1. Either recind your offer
2. You won't like it if you do not.

We have people out in space who see the Earth go around the sun. That proves the Bible is wrong about that. And whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is wrong about a secular subject. If that makes you question your faith, then I thank God my faith is stronger than your's.

The Bible is inspired and infallible in matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation. It is a religious book, not some science/history textbook. Stop blaspheming my Bible by making it something it is not. I'd rather have some militant Atheist use the Bible as a coaster than a Christian abuse its writings.

Click to expand...

Hoohaa! Give the man a cigar!

Kepler

Deamiter said:

It just occurred to me that in a geocentric model, since the Earth is not rotating, geostationary sattellites would not be able to stay geostationary. By the geocentric model, the only thing keeping them up there would HAVE to be the Earth revolving around the satellite. But since the Earth isn't moving, geostationary satellites are not possible...

What a shame since much of our communications and weather prediction satellites rely on such a thing!

Click to expand...

Brilliant!!! I wish I'd thought of that...

Kepler

Deamiter said:

The geocentrism is only in the math, not in the physical system.

Click to expand...

Just a quibble...I think this is backwards: the Geocentrism is in the conceptuallization, but it is NOT in the math. The math presumes that gravity is working the same in all cases..."

The fact is, we could conceivably get a lander on the moon using a geocentric model. We could NOT have gotten the rover to Mars, however, because the calculations for the "slingshot effect" require Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics don't work in a Gencentric model, because the earth does not have enough mass to hold the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, which all dwarf the earth) in orbit.

Keep up the good work!

Kepler

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

Believe me; if I thought the Holy Scriptures taught a flat earth I would believe it. Those verses don't blatantly say that the earth is spherical, but they imply it just as strongly, if not more strongly than any of the verses which seem to imply a flat earth.

Sincerely, Zach Doty

Click to expand...

Uh, the Holy Scriptures absolutely present the earth as flat. That is undeniable.

BTW, I notice you ignored the mustard seed challenge. It's hard to argue the Bible doesn't "literally" teach (I use that word loosely, with Paladin Valer's critique in mind!) that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, when it is God in flesh who says, "It is the smallest of all seeds".....

Kepler

The fact is, we could conceivably get a lander on the moon using a geocentric model. We could NOT have gotten the rover to Mars, however, because the calculations for the "slingshot effect" require Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics don't work in a Gencentric model, because the earth does not have enough mass to hold the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, which all dwarf the earth) in orbit.

Click to expand...

While I'm not seriously advocating geocentrism for half-a-minute I would like to point out that this might not be entirely accurate. Because the gravitational force operating in a system has formula GMm/r^2, where both masses are factored into the magnitude of the force, the Earth does have "enough force" to hold larger planets in orbit - force "contributed by" the mass of the larger planet. However, the center-of-mass of the system would of course be a whole lot closer to the larger body.