Why I Am A Geocentrist

[Vance]

What is this Science in Bible series? I was not referring to that at all, I was just talking in general.

But what you say here is a bit disturbing. Are you saying you don't follow an authorial intent hermeneutic? I know that we don't expect the writers God used to fully understand the full depth of every text, but what they actually intended does, indeed, make a GREAT deal of difference in how we should read the text. They intended a certain genre, a certain literary style, etc, and these would have been based on his cultural and historical setting. This was not just God dictating to an automaton, but allowing His message to be given to us in the "voice" and style of each individual writer. So, knowing where they were coming from is essential.

But even if you don't care what the author said, do you think even God would be making strict historical or scientific claims in every single text in Scripture in which nature or past events are described? Even when the original readers would never have expected that? If God is not intending to make such strict claims, but is using literary devices and genres to best convey His message throughout history, then why should be read it as a science book?

Do me a huge favor, read this article and tell me what you think of it:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html

 

[juvenissun]

I guess I would ask you if you agree with the general concept that if a text is not making an historical or scientific claim, that a scientific or historical inaccuracy would not undermine the truth or validity of it's actual message. If you don't agree with that statement, and you feel that ANY scientific or historical inaccuracy or contradiction in ANY text, regardless of genre, author intent, etc, calls the truth and validity of the text into question, we could have some serious problems. Of course, that would be a pretty extreme position, I am not sure I have heard anyone go that far.

I do not know about historical claim. And I do not know about "any text".

But I am confident that Bible is absolutely correct on any science implication (not "claim", there is no scientific claim in the Bible) in its text. Authors of Bible wrote the words for their purposes. No one needs to know any of the science implication in the text for the intended purposes. It is very likely that the authors were not even aware of such implications that were imbedded in their text. But, when any one turn his eyes to the implications, the scientific message is transcendently accurate.

 

[juvenissun]

What is this Science in Bible series? I was not referring to that at all, I was just talking in general.

But what you say here is a bit disturbing. Are you saying you don't follow an authorial intent hermeneutic? I know that we don't expect the writers God used to fully understand the full depth of every text, but what they actually intended does, indeed, make a GREAT deal of difference in how we should read the text. They intended a certain genre, a certain literary style, etc, and these would have been based on his cultural and historical setting. This was not just God dictating to an automaton, but allowing His message to be given to us in the "voice" and style of each individual writer. So, knowing where they were coming from is essential.

But even if you don't care what the author said, do you think even God would be making strict historical or scientific claims in every single text in Scripture in which nature or past events are described? Even when the original readers would never have expected that? If God is not intending to make such strict claims, but is using literary devices and genres to best convey His message throughout history, then why should be read it as a science book?

Do me a huge favor, read this article and tell me what you think of it:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html

I have pretty thin patience to seriously consider any such speculative analysis on Genesis creation and Genesis Flood. I don't care who is the living soul who makes the analysis today, since we do not even understand one-tenth of the scientific content, all the words are, in fact, science garbage.

 

[Vance]

I have pretty thin patience to seriously consider any such speculative analysis on Genesis creation and Genesis Flood. I don't care who is the living soul who makes the analysis today, since we do not even understand one-tenth of the scientific content, all the words are, in fact, science garbage.

Wow, I have never seen that approach before. You comment above reminds me of the time Galileo showed his telescope to a group of monks. They refused to look into it, saying that if it showed what they expected from Scripture, then there was no need of it, since Scripture was sufficient. If it showed anything different, then it would be contrary to Scripture and thus, clearly from Satan, and couldn't be trusted.

Of course, they were wrong.

 

[RichardT]

You comment above reminds me of the time Galileo showed his telescope to a group of monks. They refused to look into it, saying that if it showed what they expected from Scripture, then there was no need of it, since Scripture was sufficient. If it showed anything different, then it would be contrary to Scripture and thus, clearly from Satan, and couldn't be trusted.

Sources please. Also none of Galileo's findings contradicted Brahe's system.

 

[lemmings]

Sources please. Also none of Galileo's findings contradicted Brahe's system.

Since when does Brahe = the Bible? Biblical cosmology was based off Aristotle's work. Galileo countered the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology by demonstrating that the Moon had mountains, the sunspots, and Venus' phases.

 

[MrSnow]

I really haven't read much of this thread, but I am absolutely blown away that there are people who are seriously geocentrists. I mean, it is absolutely mind-boggling.

 

[juvenissun]

Wow, I have never seen that approach before. You comment above reminds me of the time Galileo showed his telescope to a group of monks. They refused to look into it, saying that if it showed what they expected from Scripture, then there was no need of it, since Scripture was sufficient. If it showed anything different, then it would be contrary to Scripture and thus, clearly from Satan, and couldn't be trusted.

Of course, they were wrong.

No, I think they are very correct.

Except, modern scientist would still look at it. If it is different, instead of just saying it is from satan, scientist will find out why is it different (but still with a confidence that it is a deceiving observation).

Based on this attitude, I have examined many such analyses on the Genesis creation by "microscope" before. All I saw was the same foggy logic mess. Not worth any effort to read more. Such kind of analysis made 100 years ago is not worse than that of any modern one.

 

[Scotishfury09]

No, I think they are very correct.

Except, modern scientist would still look at it. If it is different, instead of just saying it is from satan, scientist will find out why is it different (but still with a confidence that it is a deceiving observation).

Based on this attitude, I have examined many such analyses on the Genesis creation by "microscope" before. All I saw was the same foggy logic mess. Not worth any effort to read more. Such kind of analysis made 100 years ago is not worse than that of any modern one.

So then tell me, why do you fight so sternly against a flat earth? Clearly the Bible is right and science observations are from Satan, right?

 

[RichardT]

I really haven't read much of this thread, but I am absolutely blown away that there are people who are seriously geocentrists. I mean, it is absolutely mind-boggling.

I could never understand what was so mind-boggling about it.

 

[RichardT]

Since when does Brahe = the Bible? Biblical cosmology was based off Aristotle's work. Galileo countered the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology by demonstrating that the Moon had mountains, the sunspots, and Venus' phases.

Biblical cosmology = cosmology based on the bible. Galileo could have discussed the Tychonic system but decided to stick to criticizing the Ptolemaic. At the time, there was really no good reason to accept the Copernican over the Tychonic.

 

[lemmings]

Biblical cosmology = cosmology based on the bible. Galileo could have discussed the Tychonic system but decided to stick to criticizing the Ptolemaic. At the time, there was really no good reason to accept the Copernican over the Tychonic.

At the time of Galileo, there was no evidence that could disprove Geocentrism. He favored Heliocentrism because of its mathematical simplicity compared to the special pleading of Geocentricism. I don’t understand why you believe that he should have supported the geocentric model.


BTW RichardT, you never explained how gravitational slingshots work with the Earth in a geocentric system when I asked you about it in the CvE forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_slingshot

 

[Vance]

No, I think they are very correct.

Except, modern scientist would still look at it. If it is different, instead of just saying it is from satan, scientist will find out why is it different (but still with a confidence that it is a deceiving observation).

Based on this attitude, I have examined many such analyses on the Genesis creation by "microscope" before. All I saw was the same foggy logic mess. Not worth any effort to read more. Such kind of analysis made 100 years ago is not worse than that of any modern one.

Well, I am not sure I understand you. Any modern scientist looking through the telescope would not assume it was deceiving, they would determine the validity of the telescope, and if they believed it could provide an accurate view of the stars, they would accept the data from their observations through the telescope.

The monks were entirely wrong because they were placing their own interpretive ability in the place of Scripture itself. They were failing to even consider that they could just have Scripture wrong, and that what they observed through the telescope could actually inform them how God's Creation works, which could, in turn, inform them about the proper reading of Scripture.

And, it turns out, that eventually people just like those monks had to admit that this was exactly true. They all had to readjust their reading of Scripture based on the new scientific evidence. And, not surprisingly, doing so did not destroy all faith in Scripture or its validity.

 

[champuru]

At the time of Galileo, there was no evidence that could disprove Geocentrism. He favored Heliocentrism because of its mathematical simplicity compared to the special pleading of Geocentricism. I don’t understand why you believe that he should have supported the geocentric model.


BTW RichardT, you never explained how gravitational slingshots work with the Earth in a geocentric system when I asked you about it in the CvE forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_slingshot

there was some physical evidence against a geocentric universe, such as the fact that the some of the planets would seem to move forward then change direction and move backwards, that has been seen by astronomers since before the first century. They also noticed the sun made a slower circle over the course of a year. This was proof that the Earth at least moved. Math had to be used prove that it goes around the Sun.

 

[lemmings]

there was some physical evidence against a geocentric universe, such as the fact that the some of the planets would seem to move forward then change direction and move backwards, that has been seen by astronomers since before the first century. They also noticed the sun made a slower circle over the course of a year. This was proof that the Earth at least moved. Math had to be used prove that it goes around the Sun.

Geocentricism in the form that it was at the time when the Bible was written had been destroyed by merely plotting the course of comets relative to the other planets because it originally required celestial spheres that where impassible (they did not believe that gravity applied to the planets). After the discovery that the planets had elliptical orbits, the spheres vanished and people began modeling the solar system with mathematics as people gradually moved beyond the system of deferents and epicycles.

It is possible to mathematically model the paths of the planets in a geocentric system, however you must constantly move the reference frame to account for the Earth’s real orbit. A problem back then however was that in moving the reference frame, you effectively doubled the complexity of the equations for all five planets.

Geocentricism does fail when we apply Universal Gravitation, it would be impossible for the sun to orbit around the Earth with none of the other planets being influenced by our mass.

 

[champuru]

Geocentricism in the form that it was at the time when the Bible was written had been destroyed by merely plotting the course of comets relative to the other planets because it originally required celestial spheres that where impassible (they did not believe that gravity applied to the planets). After the discovery that the planets had elliptical orbits, the spheres vanished and people began modeling the solar system with mathematics as people gradually moved beyond the system of deferents and epicycles.

It is possible to mathematically model the paths of the planets in a geocentric system, however you must constantly move the reference frame to account for the Earth’s real orbit. A problem back then however was that in moving the reference frame, you effectively doubled the complexity of the equations for all five planets.

also it would be hard to prove the planets' movement to people because it would take weeks and months of careful observation to see any change.