# Geocentrists



## Ravens (Jan 28, 2007)

I know that a couple members (at least) of the board are geocentrists. I also realize that most of the "interaction" you deal with is pretty snide. So let me clarify that I don't mean any of this in a snide way, but in a very serious way. If you take the "phenomenal" language seriously, e.g., the sun is said to rise and set, therefore the sun is mobile, then do you think that rain comes from the "windows of heaven", or that the lake of fire will in the future be below the earth, in the core perhaps (e.g. in Ephesians where Christ descends into the lower parts of the earth [I guess that could mean the incarnation, I dunno], or in Philippians where every knee and tongue "under the earth" will also confess Christ as Lord).

Once again, I don't mean that in a snarky fashion. I'm just wondering how you would apply that hermeneutic across the board.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 31, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> I know that a couple members (at least) of the board are geocentrists. I also realize that most of the "interaction" you deal with is pretty snide. So let me clarify that I don't mean any of this in a snide way, but in a very serious way. If you take the "phenomenal" language seriously, e.g., the sun is said to rise and set, therefore the sun is mobile, then do you think that rain comes from the "windows of heaven", or that the lake of fire will in the future be below the earth, in the core perhaps (e.g. in Ephesians where Christ descends into the lower parts of the earth [I guess that could mean the incarnation, I dunno], or in Philippians where every knee and tongue "under the earth" will also confess Christ as Lord).
> 
> Once again, I don't mean that in a snarky fashion. I'm just wondering how you would apply that hermeneutic across the board.



Well I'm not necessarily admitting to being a geocentrist  but if I was one I would answer something along the lines of this:

Geocentrists are not just hyper literalists, but instead are contextual literalists. If the text demands what is considered a "literal view" then so be it, if it demands a symbolic view then so be it again. For example a geocentrist does not have a problem reconciling passages where God is given human or animal characteristics (hands, wings etc) with the Biblical knowledge that God is a spirit. Taking context into account easily solves these things.

Some things to keep in mind:

1)Geocentrism and Six-Day Creation/YEC rise and fall together. Whatever tools that can be used to take down one will easily take down the other.

2)Geocentrism had been the almost unquestioned view of the orthodox until about sometime in the 1600s and up until that time, and there had been no problem taking everything literally instead of taking context into the issue (this point is just to reinforced that one does not have to whitewash history to make geocentrism look better)

3)Those that held to a geocentrism were not flat earthers (Just in case one wants to counter with "Well if were are going by polls, then we might as well accept X as well)

CT


----------

