Why I Am A Geocentrist

Vance · Jan 21, 2008

Busterdog, I am not sure exactly what you mean by letting Scripture speak for itself, but it really can not mean that, having allowed scientific evidence to inform your interpretation, you then go back and see whether Scripture would support that same conclusion in the absence of the scientific evidence. That sounds a bit circular.

If, however, you mean that once you have allowed for a reconsideration of the text, and come to a conclusion that works with the scientific information, you make sure that it also makes sense within itself, then I would agree. And, since my reading of the text is that Genesis simply does not even speak to exact time or method, then I have no problem with that.

busterdog · Jan 21, 2008

RichardT said:
And Geocentrists don't say that the "sun orbits the earth" either. They say that the sun goes around the earth.

What do you mean? By the way, have you heard of Ernst Mach?

Like I said, you are scaring me.

Partly because I don't understand.

I understand what you mean about the orbit.

I am not sure I want a dog in this fight, but I would be interested to see how this position is attacked and how you respond.

busterdog · Jan 21, 2008

Vance said:
Busterdog, I am not sure exactly what you mean by letting Scripture speak for itself, but it really can not mean that, having allowed scientific evidence to inform your interpretation, you then go back and see whether Scripture would support that same conclusion in the absence of the scientific evidence. That sounds a bit circular.

Click to expand...

To us it is circular. To God, who is truth. It wouldn't be. If we are right.

As for proving that science or experimentation or experience or observation being not circular, I think you can appeal to common sense, but you can't prove it. Wittgenstein is my guy on this one.

So, I think we are in the same boat as far as "circular" reasoning. It is why Kant's wrote those long, nearly impenetrablbe sentences about the a priori.

If, however, you mean that once you have allowed for a reconsideration of the text, and come to a conclusion that works with the scientific information, you make sure that it also makes sense within itself, then I would agree. And, since my reading of the text is that Genesis simply does not even speak to exact time or method, then I have no problem with that.

Click to expand...

That's where we end. But, as you have been, it is reasonable to be suspicious of us. You rightly suspect that we are peeking at reality before we read. This is an unavoidable consequence of being human. Its why we have grace and why we have the Word we have.

Vance · Jan 21, 2008

In my long experience with this subject, I have found that the only reason the issue arises is that we have, as time has gone by, become more and more Modernistic in our mindset, and thus in our reading of the text. During the time the text was written, they had very little concept of telling about their past with a newspaper reporter mentality or style. What they valued about the stories was SO much more than the detailed, blow-by-blow events, it was a focus on the "big-ticket" items of WHO and WHY, rather than the relatively unimportant *when* and *how*. They would find our modern style of writing about the past (strict literal historic narrative) not only boring, but also strangely missing the point. And, I have to say, I think they had the better approach.

Starting as early as the time of Christ, we see a more literal reading by some (although definitely not all) commentators. In the wake of Herodotus, et al, we now had attempts to tell history from a more literal narrative approach. And, today, in our post-Enlightenment world, we simply don't value any writing about the past that does not pass that test. And, since we see the Bible as valuable, we assume it must be written in the style we find valuable.

To our modern ears, we gauge the value of any account of past events by the degree to which it can be seen as factually literal and accurate. We assume that intent on the part of the author, and then condemn any text that doesn't measure up (or, in the case of Scripture, twist the text around so that it does measure up), but that is doing a HUGE disservice to those texts written with very different motives and styles.

juvenissun · Jan 21, 2008

Vance said:
But the point is that many don't think that the Bible DOES literally say something about it, as I point out above to Busterdog. I don't read the text as making any real assertion as to the timing or exact method of creation at all.

This is a simple one. Just read Genesis 1:1. That is where the Bible "literally" addresses the time frame of creation, loud and clear. That is the literal base of YEC. If you are in OE or TE, then you "have to" interpret this chapter, rather than take it literally.

In comparison, there is no such literal equivalence to the idea of geocentrism. An example is what RichardT said:

And Geocentrists don't say that the "sun orbits the earth" either. They say that the sun goes around the earth.

RichardT's statement should stop right at the word "around" as: "the sun goes around", period. Literally, the Bible does not say it goes around "the earth". To be more complete, the Bible suggests: the sun goes around "in the sky". Which is logically and scientifically true.

Vance · Jan 21, 2008

But, don't you see that a literal reading is also an interpretation? You are choosing among a wide variety of possible literary genres and styles, and your choice of "strict literal historic narrative" is an interpretive choice.

Why is there this idea that we should start with a literal reading as a default, and any variation from that is some sort of divergence from "normal" or "plain"? We have an anthology of texts written over a thousand year period by many different writers. Many of these texts were written at a time when literal historical narrative was simply not a preferred method of writing about the past. It is only with our modern lenses that we insist on giving literal historical narrative some type of pride of place.

As for Genesis 1:1, all that says is that in the beginning, God created. There is nothing in that statement which contradicts OEC or TE. I believe that, in the Beginning (whenever that was) God DID create everything there is. That verse tells nothing about any time frame or method of developing life.

RichardT · Jan 21, 2008

RichardT's statement should stop right at the word "around" as: "the sun goes around", period. Literally, the Bible does not say it goes around "the earth". To be more complete, the Bible suggests: the sun goes around "in the sky". Which is logically and scientifically true.

Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Is this literal or figurative?

juvenissun · Jan 21, 2008

RichardT said:
Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Is this literal or figurative?

literal.

Vance · Jan 21, 2008

juvenissun said:
literal.

Yes, read properly, it IS literal. It is literally phenomenologically correct.

But, despite that seemingly obvious take on it, this sensible interpretation seemed to elude everyone for a couple of thousand years. They so strongly assumed it was LITERALLY referring to the earth remaining unmoved and a moving sun traveling around the earth that when faced with a scientific explanation to the contrary, they insisted such scientific concept was contrary to Scripture.

Similarly, I think that Genesis 1 and 2 can be read literally in one sense: it is referring to literal historical events. God DID create everything, He DID create Mankind in His image, He DID create order out of chaos, He DID desire an intimate communion with Mankind, somehow Mankind DID (and does) blow it, and "fell" and lost that communion so that we are in need of redemption (leading to Christ's redemptive work).

These are literal events in the historic past. But, the only question is what particular literary genre and style did the ancient Israelites choose to describe those events? A strict literal historical narrative, which was entirely unknown to ANY culture for hundreds of years? Or did they simply use the literary genre that was common and understandable and expected by the ANE culture they were a part of? Well, for me, since it reads so dramatically like that type of symbolic, figurative and typological account, I conclude that they used those literary devices to describe the literal events of their past.

shernren · Jan 21, 2008

busterdog said:
Like I said, you are scaring me.

Partly because I don't understand.

I understand what you mean about the orbit.

I am not sure I want a dog in this fight, but I would be interested to see how this position is attacked and how you respond.

But why not? After all, RichardT thinks you have to be a geocentrist to live with a responsibly literal interpretation of the Bible. You think that you have to be a heliocentrist to live with a responsibly literal interpretation of the Bible.

You thought that anyone who reads the Bible geocentrically must be doing so just to take the mickey out of inerrantists; RichardT thinks that anyone who reads the Bible heliocentrically is really just compromising with mainstream science.

This ought to be interesting, if you have the guts to stand up to the implications of your worldview.

champuru · Jan 21, 2008

I think it is alittle sad that we are having this discussion in this day and age. If earth is a the center of the universe then all the planets should go around us. but they dont. Most of these verses are used as poetry and therefore should not be taken literally for it was humans that said them and not God. Many of them lied on purpose as can be seen in the bible and this wasnt so much a lie as a figure of speech. As for the quotes about the sun rising and setting... they are not wrong because that is what it looks like from our point of view... I dont even know how else a person would describe what the sun does in the morning.

by the way Job said "Who moveth the earth from its place…" Job 9:6

But i too am not a heliocentrist because the sun is not at the center of the universe...nor of our galaxy. It is just a focus point.

lemmings · Jan 22, 2008

RichardT said:
Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Is this literal or figurative?

It would be inaccurate if interpreted literately.

‘Down’ and ‘ariseth’ have no meaning in an astronomical sense and thus it is talking relative to the observer. This passage is referring to sunrises and sunsets. Even in this manor however it is inaccurate, the sun never rises or sets in exactly the same place, it’s position on the horizon will always be different because of the Earth’s axis and the duration of its year.

juvenissun · Jan 22, 2008

lemmings said:
It would be inaccurate if interpreted literately.

‘Down’ and ‘ariseth’ have no meaning in an astronomical sense and thus it is talking relative to the observer. This passage is referring to sunrises and sunsets. Even in this manor however it is inaccurate, the sun never rises or sets in exactly the same place, it’s position on the horizon will always be different because of the Earth’s axis and the duration of its year.

Who said it should be at the same place?

lemmings · Jan 22, 2008

juvenissun said:
Who said it should be at the same place?

"to his place where he arose."

gluadys · Jan 22, 2008

champuru said:
I Most of these verses are used as poetry and therefore should not be taken literally

Be a little careful with this reasoning. The fact that a statement is part of a poem does not necessarily mean it is not intended as a literal statement.

The poet can be building images out what he believes to be literal "scientific" truth.

In fact, it is interesting to look at the cosmological references in poetry of different ages. The poetry in the bible uses cosmological images that fit with flat earth scenario. Isaiah 40:22 is a good example of that. A flat disc-shaped earth with a sky-tent stretched over it.

Go to medieval literature like Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost and the cosmological images are based on Ptolomy's spherical, geocentric earth.

Modern poetry, when it uses cosmological images, will invoke notions of orbiting spheres, galaxies and the immensity of space.

by the way Job said "Who moveth the earth from its place" Job 9:6

Key word: "who" i.e. God. Job is not saying that the earth normally moves from its place, but that God can move it out of the place where it normally rests. The same verse refers to the pillars of the earth trembling when God does this, so the image is of shaking something which is normally firm and stable.

juvenissun · Jan 22, 2008

lemmings said:
"to his place where he arose."

How do you call that place? Does it have a name?

gluadys · Jan 22, 2008

gluadys said:
The poet can be building images out what he believes to be literal "scientific" truth.

In fact, it is interesting to look at the cosmological references in poetry of different ages.

Just to follow up on this. Let us compare some hymns.

From the bible we have psalm 19. From the 15th century we have "The spacious firmament on high" by Joseph Addison, which paraphrases Psalm 19.

There are some subtle differences between the wording of the Psalmist and Addison's wording.

The psalmist speaking of the wordless "language" of the heavens says "Yet their voice goes out through all the earth and there words to the end of the world." This is followed by a description of the sun whose "rising is from the end of the heavens and its circuit to the end of them."

Clearly the psamist is portraying both an earth and a heaven with definable "ends".

In Addisons' paraphrase the stars "confirm the tidings as they roll/And spread the truth from pole to pole." And he continues "What though in solemn silence all/move round the dark terrestrial ball..."

Two things stand out. Addison is still speaking of the heavens and heavenly bodies moving around the earth. But instead of the "end" of the earth, he speaks of its poles and calls it a "terrestrial ball". So he has changed from imagery of a flat-earth with vaulted heaven above to a geocentric earth with the heavens rolling around it.

I couldn't find a modern paraphrase of Psalm 19, but look at these lines from some contemporary hymns.

From "God created heaven and earth"

"God's great power made dark and light/earth revolving day and night"

From "Creating God, your fingers trace"

"Creating God, your fingers trace/the bold designs of farthest space"

From "Before the Earth"

"Before the Earth had yet begun/its journey round the burning sun..."

Here we have the poetry of modern cosmology.

(All these hymns were found in Voices United, the current hymnbook of the United Church of Canada)

Conclusion: the poetic/literal dichotomy is too simplistic. It does not always apply. Ideas we understand to be "literal fact" often find their way into poetry. So one can not assume from a poetic setting that the author's phrasing is not also to be understood literally -- at least as far as the author is concerned. He can well be referring to what he thinks of as "fact" according to the knowledge of his time.

shernren · Jan 22, 2008

gluadys said:
Just to follow up on this. Let us compare some hymns.

...

I couldn't find a modern paraphrase of Psalm 19, but look at these lines from some contemporary hymns.

From "God created heaven and earth"

"God's great power made dark and light/earth revolving day and night"

From "Creating God, your fingers trace"

"Creating God, your fingers trace/the bold designs of farthest space"

From "Before the Earth"

"Before the Earth had yet begun/its journey round the burning sun..."

Here we have the poetry of modern cosmology.

(All these hymns were found in Voices United, the current hymnbook of the United Church of Canada)

Conclusion: the poetic/literal dichotomy is too simplistic. It does not always apply. Ideas we understand to be "literal fact" often find their way into poetry. So one can not assume from a poetic setting that the author's phrasing is not also to be understood literally -- at least as far as the author is concerned. He can well be referring to what he thinks of as "fact" according to the knowledge of his time.

Who has told every lightning bolt where it should go
Or seen heavenly storehouses laden with snow
Who imagined the sun and gives source to its light
Yet conceals it to bring us the coolness of night
None can fathom
- Chris Tomlin / Laura Story, "Indescribable"

Wonder what kind of cosmogony you'd derive from that.

RichardT · Jan 22, 2008

lemmings said:
It would be inaccurate if interpreted literately.

Down and ariseth have no meaning in an astronomical sense and thus it is talking relative to the observer. This passage is referring to sunrises and sunsets. Even in this manor however it is inaccurate, the sun never rises or sets in exactly the same place, its position on the horizon will always be different because of the Earths axis and the duration of its year.

I'll go with the answer that it goes back approximately where it arose very day.

lemmings · Jan 22, 2008

RichardT said:
It goes back to the place where it arose every year.

It will not. The duration of a year does not correspond to the duration of a day.

From a geocentric perspective, the Sun will be nearly 200,000 miles away from it's initial position after 365 days.

Why I Am A Geocentrist

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

you are not reading this.

I don't know what I want to put here. Suggestions?

Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Veteran

Legend

... and God saw that it was good.

Legend

you are not reading this.

Contributor

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency