# Geocentricity Question



## Timmay (Dec 30, 2020)

I’ve stumbled upon some old threads on geocentric models of the universe. This is fascinating stuff. I have a question to those who know better.....

It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position. What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth? 

Also, how does the Higgs Boson come into play with respect to the geocentric model?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.


Taylor, what he is positing is a model in which the sun is the center of the solar system, but the earth the center of the universe, not a model in which there are two centers to the solar system.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timmay (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.



I don’t think being in the center necessarily means something has to revolve around it. If the universe is only a couple thousand years old, even though the earth is revolving around something, the earth can still be at the center as opposed to a billion year universe where the earth may have revolved away from the center of the universe because of the massive amounts of time involved. I don’t see why the Earth couldn’t revolve around the sun and yet maintain its positional centrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 30, 2020)

Timmay said:


> I’ve stumbled upon some old threads on geocentric models of the universe. This is fascinating stuff. I have a question to those who know better.....
> 
> It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position. What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth?
> 
> ...


The sun revolving around the earth tends to be the raison d'etre for geocentrism. Most people who adopt the position do so because they think that it is theologically or philosophically important for the sun to revolve around the earth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 30, 2020)

I suppose I am an unusual geocentrist because I accept that orbital mechanics accurately depict and predict observations. That means it is fine to posit a model for observational purposes that has the earth revolving around the sun, etc. It makes for relatively easy calculations.

But I like to challenge myself on remembering that the "natural laws" we come up with are empirical summaries of what we observe or experience, nothing more. God's universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to his will. 

For example, we talk about the force of gravity because we feel it and measure it. But is it an attractive force? Or is it God's upholding word requiring the object to act in a prescribed manner?

I'd be very surprised if observational experiments end up "proving" geocentricism. It is a way of looking at the world to remind us that Creation is not God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Taylor, what he is positing is a model in which the sun is the center of the solar system, but the earth the center of the universe, not a model in which there are two centers to the solar system.


I understand what he is saying. I am saying that that is inconceivable to me. For instance. Look at this circle:




_A_ is the center of the circle. I cannot conceive of how _A_ can revolve around _B_ while also still maintaining its position as the center of the circle. The only way that could happen, as I see it, is for the circle itself to move, too. I guess it also depends on what precisely we mean by "center."


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> God does not contradict himself in His creation. We can be sure that studying the heavens will not lead us into error.


Rather, we can be sure that studying the heavens _with biblical presuppositions_ will not lead us into error. Yes, God does not contradict himself in creation, but the noetic effects of sin cause many to stumble in their scientific pursuits.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 30, 2020)

Timmay said:


> It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position.


Standard cosmological models put anything and everything at the center: there is no center.


> What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth?


Because that is the simplest coordinate transformation from the perspective of GR (which is mathematically agnostic--and originally intended to be physically agnostic--to the center), which is "needed" in order for geocentrism to be consistent with observations. A physically absolute geocentrism that had the earth revolving around the sun and the earth at the center of the universe would require the universe to rotate or (probably more accurately) wobble to maintain the earth's centrality. So far as rotation of the universe goes, I was told by my old cosmology professor that the universe has the wrong topology for that to be the case. I don't know about a wobble. Perhaps a geocentrist could be happy with approximate absolute physical centrality (though I do not know of any geocentrists who hold that), since the earth-sun distance or even the galactic-scale is nothing compared to the universe; or maybe they could come up with a different definition of "center" that would not require a wobble (maybe center of gravity of the universe and all the rotations and revolutions of objects miraculously exactly cancel out to produce the center at that point? Or maybe even center of mass [I feel like something might discredit this already; I'd have to give it a think; just throwing it out there.]?). (Some geocentrists do allow the earth to rotate, but all have the universe and the sun going around the earth)



> Also, how does the Higgs Boson come into play with respect to the geocentric model?


It doesn't. The Higgs Boson is what allows particles in the Standard Model that should be massless by the symmetries of the universe (which include things like energy conservation) to "softly" break the symmetry and become massive: important for the Standard Model to match observations, since we observe particles to have mass. The only geocentrist I know who has made use of high energy particle physics for his absolute physical geocentrism made use of superstrings in an aether. I don't recall the Higgs Boson coming into play there, and I don't see where it would be relevant (except in very indirect ways).


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> I think you mean to distinguish between the data and the interpretation of that data.


Exactly. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Since this is a Christian board, the "biblical presuppositions" part is to be assumed. Still, there are many out there, including many Christians, who believe that human beings are presupposition-less _tabula rasa_, to the end that whatever they discover in nature, however it is concluded, is _de facto_ the case. It's just not true. Presuppositions matter. There are no brute facts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Still, there are many out there, including many Christians, who believe that human beings are presupposition-less _tabula rasa_, to the end that whatever they discover in nature, however it is concluded, is _de facto_ the case. It's just not true. Presuppositions matter. There are no brute facts.


Turretin affirms _tabula rasa_ with some qualifications, which are, to paraphrase, that while humans are not born with declarative knowledge, they are born with innate logical principles that may be worked out. Which is pretty much identical to the epistemology of Noam Chomsky. Also Thomas Aquinas. All that to say, I think you should reconsider. Whatever conclusions we come to regarding epistemology, they need to lead to a strong affirmation of objective "facts", or we won't be able to conclude our heathen neighbors under sin. We should not be existentialists.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Here is a good DVD series explaining geocentricity and how it is mathematically possible for those interested. I tend to believe when scripture says the sun moves (or stood still) and goes to its place, that is does.

Journey to the Center of the Universe

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

One argument I've heard posed for geocentricism is that there is no telling which object is fixed and which is rotating, and that it's all a matter of perspective, so if we conclude that the earth is fixed that's not a problem from a physical or mathematic standpoint. However, that's simply not true, due to the principle of absolute rotation. A freely swing pendulum readily demonstrates that the earth moves around it because over the course of a day it will procede opposite the direction of the rotation of the earth.


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> Forgive me if Im misrepresenting the argument, but a free swinging pendulum demonstrates that the Earth *does* move, yet my understanding of geocentrism necesitates belief that Earth *does not* move. Correct?


Yes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timmay (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> Forgive me if Im misrepresenting the argument, but a free swinging pendulum demonstrates that the Earth *does* move, yet my understanding of geocentrism necesitates belief that Earth *does not* move. Correct?



The earth does not move or does not rotate? I thought some geocentrists allow for rotation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> Could you present the arguments here for us to consider?
> 
> I think nobody on this forum disbelieves scripture when it speaks of the sun moving and going to its place. Rather, we do not think this logically necessitates or even implies geocentrism. I find it faulty exegesis to seek conclusions about orbital mechanics in passages that are intended to display God's judgment, or His sustaining power over creation.


Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.



https://www.youtube.com/user/MalcolmBowden/videos

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/MalcolmBowden/videos


Can you explain in your own words how the Foucalt Pendulum does not demonstrate that that earth is rotating about its axis every 24 hours?


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> .


.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/user/MalcolmBowden/videos



I've gone around on this many times in the past. A mathematical model (ellipses, rotation) is not equivalent to a physical model. Yes, one can come up with equations that describe a situation where the sun and universe rotate around the earth. But there is no physical model I've seen that can account for that much mass moving that quickly. _Could_ God do it? Absolutely. He could also re-create the entire universe in each successive moment as Edwards believed. That doesn't prove that's how he does it, though.

All the geocentrist explanations I've ever seen take just enough information to support their case and ignore anything that doesn't fit it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

I subscribe to geocentrism for the same reason for subscribing to the young age of the earth; it’s what the Scriptures teach. It can’t be proven or disproven scientifically, same as the age of the earth.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 30, 2020)

Another Article Against Geocentrism


A follow-up article to their original piece against geocentrism: http://creation.com/refuting-geocentrism-response




www.puritanboard.com





There are kinematics and dynamics. GR provides the dynamics via weird gravitational forces in the metric that go away when transforming to other frames. Philosophically then, GR makes geocentrism physically equivalent to any other centrism; for obvious reasons, if we see terms go away in other frames, we assume they are not real; but that is a choice we make. The real and only reason to hold to geocentrism is because of belief that such is what the Bible teaches. Physics and science will do what it will do; the philosophy of science will continue to make advances or go around in circles; but there is enough uncertainty and complexity here that one cannot say that geocentrism of one sort or another has been definitively disproven by science.


----------



## Timmay (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> I've gone around on this many times in the past. A mathematical model (ellipses, rotation) is not equivalent to a physical model. Yes, one can come up with equations that describe a situation where the sun and universe rotate around the earth. But there is no physical model I've seen that can account for that much mass moving that quickly. _Could_ God do it? Absolutely. He could also re-create the entire universe in each successive moment as Edwards believed. That doesn't prove that's how he does it, though.
> 
> All the geocentrist explanations I've ever seen take just enough information to support their case and ignore anything that doesn't fit it.



I was thinking this as well. From an engineering standpoint, it would be more economical to move a smaller item in 24hrs (the earth in rotation) than the whole universe in 24hrs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I subscribe to geocentrism for the same reason for subscribing to the young age of the earth; it’s what the Scriptures teach. It can’t be proven or disproven scientifically, same as the age of the earth.


The age of the earth is a historical question, and I agree that it cannot be proven scientifically, any more than the day on which Julius Caesar died. The present-day position of the earth however is subject to observation. I also deny that the Scriptures teach geocentricism; they of course use the language of the sun stopping, rising, setting, etc, but so do all modern heliocentrists, which I think shows that such language is not an absolute statement of belief on cosmology. By contrast there's no figure of speech that can explain the language of the Scripture that the earth was made in six days.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> I think it is not keeping in good faith to posit that there are arguments, but not present them. That they exist on physical media is an undue hinderance on discussion via forum thread.
> 
> What are the mathematic models that describe orbital mechanics from a geocentric model?


Not in good faith? Scripture says the sun moves.

I gave you resources that answer your questions. The DVD series goes through all of the experiments and the scientists who conducted them. It is up to you and others to decide if you wish to explore the possibility that everything we're taught is correct. I simply provided resources for those who wish to look into it further.

I was never taught the doctrines of grace and believed I chose to be saved because that is what I had been taught. One day, the DoG were presented to me and ruffled my feathers, but I really wanted to look into it. Same thing happened with the pre-trib rapture. We can be taught a lot of error. I'm not telling you to believe what I do, but for those who have never seriously thought about it, these are good resources.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> Can you explain in your own words how the Foucalt Pendulum does not demonstrate that that earth is rotating about its axis every 24 hours?


Can you explain how God hung the earth on nothing?


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I subscribe to geocentrism for the same reason for subscribing to the young age of the earth; it’s what the Scriptures teach. It can’t be proven or disproven scientifically, same as the age of the earth.


You might be interested in the DVD series I mentioned. Geocentricity can be mathematically proven. Many of the great scientists haven't been completely honest.


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> Can you explain in your own words how the Foucalt Pendulum does not demonstrate that that earth is rotating about its axis every 24 hours?





My Pilgrim Way said:


> Can you explain how God hung the earth on nothing?



Melissa, how is this helpful? This is just combative rhetoric.

And once again, there is no mathematical "proof". I can write a series of equations describing just about anything, real or imagined. But that _proves_ nothing. If the insistence is that evidence backs it up, then we need to talk physical models.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> You might be interested in the DVD series I mentioned. Geocentricity can be mathematically proven. Many of the great scientists haven't been completely honest.


You can't just say that while ignoring the mathematical and physical matters I'm raising and expect to be taken seriously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

The accounts in Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20 are historical narratives that teach the cessation of the sun’s normal movement. I realize there is push back about that but I don’t see any way around it (neither did Nietzsche!).

An informative exercise is to do a PB search of “geocentricity” with “MW” in the member field (that’s Rev. Matthew Winzer).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The accounts in Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20 are historical narratives that teach the cessation of the sun’s normal movement. I realize there is push back about that but I don’t see any way around it (neither did Nietzsche!).
> 
> An informative exercise is to do a PB search of “geocentricity” with “MW” in the member field (that’s Rev. Matthew Winzer).


If I can talk about a "sunrise" while believing that the apparent rising of the sun is due to the earth's rotation, why couldn't the scripture speak in the same manner about the sun stopping? It's a moot point that Joshua and 2 Kings are historical passages, because I'm not claiming that their language is poetic. Not all figures of speech are proper only to poetic literature. If I say "the sun rose at 7 a.m. today", that's also a historical observation, but it in no way implies that I'm a geocentrist.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Timmay said:


> I was thinking this as well. From an engineering standpoint, it would be more economical to move a smaller item in 24hrs (the earth in rotation) than the whole universe in 24hrs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





NathanielRCalloway said:


> By not good faith I mean in order to respond to your argument I would have to buy the DVDs, have them shipped to my home, carve out time to watch them, then come back to respond to the arguments. However, you affirm the arguments of the DVDs, but will not tell me what they are. I must either conclude that you either do not understand your own argument, or you are acting in bad faith.
> 
> 
> I am interested in responding to these arguments.
> ...


I also gave a link to free videos. Or, you can take the time to look up the research papers for yourself and read them. As with anything we believe, it is incumbent upon us to take time to see if these things are true. I believe God has told us truths about our world and the heavens.

https://Jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

Well, y’all just read the passages. Especially in Joshua 10, it’s pretty clear.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 2


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> You can't just say that while ignoring the mathematical and physical matters I'm raising and expect to be taken seriously.


I am not a physicist. Others are and present another side. It isn't like there aren't Christians who believe in geocentricity. You're free to explore that or not.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> Melissa, how is this helpful? This is just combative rhetoric.
> 
> And once again, there is no mathematical "proof". I can write a series of equations describing just about anything, real or imagined. But that _proves_ nothing. If the insistence is that evidence backs it up, then we need to talk physical models.


There are lots of things in the Christian faith we cannot adequately explain yet we believe them. Coming to a geocentric point of view happened because I too literally what scripture says about the sun and wondered if that was even a thing. I was gladly surprised to find other Christians who hold to this view.

I think it was also a bit combative to be asked to explain something when I'm not a physicist and said so. To put it in a simplistic way, either there is ether moving around the earth that carries all the planets or the earth spins. God set the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament. I believe they move about in the firmament.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Timmay said:


> I was thinking this as well. From an engineering standpoint, it would be more economical to move a smaller item in 24hrs (the earth in rotation) than the whole universe in 24hrs.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE*
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.


Since when are God's ways or thoughts the same as ours? Is anything too hard for Him?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 30, 2020)

There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The accounts in Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20 are historical narratives that teach the cessation of the sun’s normal movement. I realize there is push back about that but I don’t see any way around it (neither did Nietzsche!).
> 
> An informative exercise is to do a PB search of “geocentricity” with “MW” in the member field (that’s Rev. Matthew Winzer).



I just want to say that I personally am very familiar with Winzer's arguments. I have never been convinced that the text demands a linguistically precise, physical-model interpretation and I think it's worth pointing out that he's in the great minority even in the Reformed world. Regardless, if someone feels convicted that the text does demand it, it doesn't really bother me.

What does bother me is when claims are made out to be proof, or that the Michelson-Morley tests showed the earth wasn't moving, or how there is no Doppler shift of electromagnetics or some other stuff, or this one guy's article no one has ever heard of. Sometimes the lone rogue scientist (if they can even be called that) is right, but not usually. If we want to look at evidence one way or another, let's deal with it honestly and not ignore certain aspects or misread something because it's not our area of expertise. So much of what I've seen given as evidence in the past is really just ignorance.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Timmay (Dec 30, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.



Yes. And yet the Big Bang cosmologists posit Dark Matter which sounds awfully a lot like the aether. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

Timmay said:


> Yes. And yet the Big Bang cosmologists posit Dark Matter which sounds awfully a lot like the aether.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No one here believes in big bang cosmology so that's not a very strong argument.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.


It is likely the firmament that God created


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> No one here believes in big bang cosmology so that's not a very strong argument.



These threads are fun, and some day I'll post my long-winded and probably overly cheeky thoughts on the whole set of things, but I had to comment....

I believe in a big bang. Bigger than whatever the cosmologists have come up with.

It began with a simple but overwhelmingly awesome statement:

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Gen. 1:3 KJV)

Ever really pondered light? It scares me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> These threads are fun, and some day I'll post my long-winded and probably overly cheeky thoughts on the whole set of things, but I had to comment....
> 
> I believe in a big bang. Bigger than whatever the cosmologists have come up with.
> 
> ...


Sure. Nothing wrong with that. I only mean the big bang as understood by atheists like Steven Hawking (who is an atheist no more).


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> What does bother me is when claims are made out to be proof, or that the Michelson-Morley tests showed the earth wasn't moving, or how there is no Doppler shift of electromagnetics or some other stuff, or this one guy's article no one has ever heard of. Sometimes the lone rogue scientist (if they can even be called that) is right, but not usually. If we want to look at evidence one way or another, let's deal with it honestly and not ignore certain aspects or misread something because it's not our area of expertise. So much of what I've seen given as evidence in the past is really just ignorance.


I agree, and was instructed by Rev. Winzer’s way of not getting into models and proofs concerning the age of the earth, evolution, and, as I recall, this issue. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I agree, and was instructed by Rev. Winzer’s way of not getting into models and proofs concerning the age of the earth, evolution, and, as I recall, this issue. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”


So isn't it advocating concordism for one but not for the other issues?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> So isn't it advocating concordism for one but not for the other issues?


I had to look the term up and found it means that "the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data)." Is that what you have in mind? But I'm not sure what "it" is in your question, or what you're thinking by bringing up advocating...could you rephrase?


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I had to look the term up and found it means that "the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data)." Is that what you have in mind? But I'm not sure what "it" is in your question, or what you're thinking by bringing up advocating...could you rephrase?


It referring to 'geocentrism.'

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> I think the issue is that true harm is done to the Christian witness when we insist that the scriptures teach something that they do not, with hermeneutical approaches that do not honor our Lord.
> 
> If we applied consistently the hermeneutics used to derive geocentrism we would end up dispensationalists. The historical/contextual approach and authorial intent is the correct way to exegete these texts.


I would say the harm was done to the Christian witness when the church capitulated to the science of the day and let go of clinging to the Scriptures concerning this. The only reason for it was that they were ashamed of the testimony of Scripture in the face of the new science theories and models.

But as far as hermenuetics, what does the narrator of the passage (the Holy Spirit) relate in Joshua 10:12-14? "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like it before or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man..."

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> It referring to 'geocentrism.'





arapahoepark said:


> So isn't it advocating concordism for one but not for the other issues?


Ok, sorry Trent, I'm not really understanding the question. I don't think I meant to advocate concordism at all.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok, sorry Trent, I'm not really understanding the question. I don't think I meant to advocate concordism at all.


I meant, isn't Rev. Winzer's advocacy for geocentrism from the Bible is a sort of concordism that isn't consistently applied to other scientific and empirical issues?


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> I meant, isn't Rev. Winzer's advocacy for geocentrism from the Bible is a sort of concordism that isn't consistently applied to other scientific and empirical issues?


I really hesitate to speak for Rev. Winzer but maybe it's safe to say he believes that the narrative in Joshua 10 is historical fact; and that the sun stood still and stayed in its place in the heavens for "about a day" speaks to the sun moving around the earth, rather than the other way around; but I don't recall that he spoke to anything related to concordism, I don't think he was interested in that aspect.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.



Bingo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> This is the heart of the issue. Why is Joshua writing this passage, and what does he intend to communicate to us by inspiration of the Spirit?
> 
> In the context of the conquest of the Amorites, Joshua petitions the Lord for the heavens to be stopped so they might visit vengence on their enemies. The Lord, graciously, and surprising heeded the voice of a man in order to bring His judgment on the Amorites.
> 
> ...


I believe Joshua wrote down the account of what happened in order to show God's power and mercy to Israel, and that Joshua told how that was demonstrated, and the stopping of the sun in its course was something God did so Joshua reported it. Similar to other wondrous things God did that were written down and recorded when he went to battle for Israel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> It is likely the firmament that God created



Neither the Hebrew nor what aether was intended to prove support that. The r'qqa functions to divide the waters. Aether purported to be a medium through which light moved. While aether has been debunked, it was never intended to function as a firmanent.


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.



To be fair, the results were also in keeping with one theory at the time, which was "complete aether-drag". Or a geocentrist _could_ say that since the earth is at the center, aether moves all around the earth but its velocity is zero where we measure it. Or that the aether is just stationary relative to the earth.

Now these explanations lack evidence (and actually, contrary evidence exists, like variances in abberation), but the point is that the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't prove aether doesn't exist, it proved there is no change in the speed of light relative to the theorized direction of the theorized aether relative to the earth. Certainly one possible explanation is that the aether doesn't exist, but I don't think that experiment alone proves it. Just trying to be fair 

Personally I find it odd that so many geocentrists, who (admirably) believe they are being true to Scripture by holding to that view, spend so much time defending an aether, which isn't a biblical concept at all as far as I can tell (equating it to the firmament is a stretch by any measure).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Neither the Hebrew nor what aether was intended to prove support that. The r'qqa functions to divide the waters. Aether purported to be a medium through which light moved. While aether has been debunked, it was never intended to function as a firmanent.


Thank you. I wasn't trying to make an argument for aether. I believe there are waters under the firmament and above the firmament where God placed the sun, moon, and stars.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Thank you. I wasn't trying to make an argument for aether. I believe there are waters under the firmament and above the firmament where God placed the sun, moon, and stars.


In post #48 you suggested the firmament was aether.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> This is the heart of the issue. Why is Joshua writing this passage, and what does he intend to communicate to us by inspiration of the Spirit?
> 
> In the context of the conquest of the Amorites, Joshua petitions the Lord for the heavens to be stopped so they might visit vengence on their enemies. The Lord, graciously, and surprising heeded the voice of a man in order to bring His judgment on the Amorites.
> 
> ...


Perhaps if that was an isolated incident of the sun moving or not, but there are many passages about its movement/circuit. If the sun doesn't, why did God stop it?

Science "proves" old earth / evolution so do we dismiss that God created everything in a literal six days? As a Christian, how do you prove to someone that creation was six days...because the bible tells me so?


----------



## CJW (Dec 30, 2020)

I’m not a scientist, in fact far from it, in that I’m content with an explanation that things work in the universe because that’s how God made them to work, and leave it at that. Far greater Christian minds than mine, however, have believed in geocentricity, and with that I am content.

The Joshua passage teaches that both the sun and the moon stopped in the heavens. Either they are both moving around the earth, or they are both not. And with that too, I am content. I believe these things by faith, and leave it at that. If my stance appears to harm my Christian witness, I can’t really change that without damaging my faith in the Word of God. If people find my belief amusing, and scientifically ignorant, I remember they used to laugh at people so unscientific as to believe in Hittites because the Bible told them so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reactions: Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In post #48 you suggested the firmament was aether. Here is more info for anyone that is interested.


Here is more information for those interested.





__





geocexpl.htm






mbowden.info





God created the earth before the sun. That seems odd if it circuits the sun. When did He set it in motion? The bible also says it is fixed and immovable.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 30, 2020)

Strictly speaking, M-M made the aether concept unnecessary; it did not disprove its existence. The advent of GR has made things different. One could almost see the new "aether" being what we call "space-time," but this more of a transferrence of concept rather than an identity between the two.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 30, 2020)



Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> Turretin affirms _tabula rasa_ with some qualifications, which are, to paraphrase, that while humans are not born with declarative knowledge, they are born with innate logical principles that may be worked out. Which is pretty much identical to the epistemology of Noam Chomsky. Also Thomas Aquinas. All that to say, I think you should reconsider. Whatever conclusions we come to regarding epistemology, they need to lead to a strong affirmation of objective "facts", or we won't be able to conclude our heathen neighbors under sin. We should not be existentialists.


I am familiar with Turretin here. He says, as you summarize:

It is certain that no *actual* knowledge is born with us and that, in this respect, man is like a smooth tablet (_tabulae rasae_). Rather the question is whether such can be granted at least with regard to principle and potency; or whether such a natural faculty implanted in man may be granted as will put forth its strength of its own accord, and spontaneously in all adults endowed with reason, *which embraces not only the capability of understanding, but also the natural first principles of knowledge from which conclusions both theoretical and practical are deduced (which we maintain)*.​​—Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology: First through Tenth Topics_, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992), 6; italics original; bold and underline added.​
I don't think anything I said disagrees with Turretin. I never said there are no _objective_ facts. I said there are no _brute_ facts, which Frame defines as “facts apart from any interpretation" (John M. Frame, _A History of Western Philosophy and Theology_ [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2015], 743). Objectivity and interpretation are two different areas of concern, although certainly related. All facts are objective, but they are objective _because_ they exist in the mind of and are interpreted by the God who created them. So in order for human beings to come to _objective_ knowledge about anything, presupposing the truth of God is necessary (Prov. 1:7). This doesn't leave any room, for the unbeliever to be excused of their sin, though. They all know the truth about God, but they suppress it (Rom. 1:8). They have access to all the same _objective_ facts that you and I do, but they pretend that they are _brute_, existing in and of themselves (Rom. 1:21-22). But all facts, as they stand, are facts because they are created and preinterpreted by God.

That's all I meant. But I disgress. This thread isn't about epistemology, and my inner Van Til could wax eloquent here, so I'll stop here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> Please present such a passage with your exegesis from which you draw geocentrism. It is my suspicion that your hermeneutic in handling the passage is significantly different from mine.
> 
> Please refrain from conflating the age of the Earth and geocentrism. This serves only to obfuscate the discussion. The cosmogony of scripture as it relates to apologetics is an entirely different discussion.


If scripture says the sun moves, it goes against the current thought of the day which means there could be an alternate theory I've not yet heard or considered. To my surprise, there is.

I am trying to make the point that in one instance (six day creation) we are to take it literal, but when it comes to the movement of the sun, we are not because science "proves" it. From the beginning, Satan inverts and perverts all that God has created or said.

Like CJW above, I believe in faith even if it seems simple to others. This is not apocalyptic language.


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

CJW said:


> I’m not a scientist, in fact far from it, in that I’m content with an explanation that things work in the universe because that’s how God made them to work, and leave it at that. Far greater Christian minds than mine, however, have believed in geocentricity, and with that I am content.
> 
> The Joshua passage teaches that both the sun and the moon stopped in the heavens. Either they are both moving around the earth, or they are both not. And with that too, I am content. I believe these things by faith, and leave it at that. If my stance appears to harm my Christian witness, I can’t really change that without damaging my faith in the Word of God. If people find my belief amusing, and scientifically ignorant, I remember they used to laugh at people so unscientific as to believe in Hittites because the Bible told them so.



Let's be clear though that this discussion isn't about believing vs not believing the Bible. I could just as easily say that far greater Christians minds have *not* believed in geocentricity and with that I am content. I believe what the Bible says too. But I disagree that it demands a geocentrist interpretation of the universe.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I am trying to make the point that in one instance (six day creation) we are to take it literal, but when it comes to the movement of the sun, we are not because science "proves" it. From the beginning, Satan inverts and perverts all that God has created or said.
> 
> Like CJW above, I believe in faith even if it seems simple to others. This is not apocalyptic language.



That's not at all what is being presented here and it is quite inappropriate to make the two cases equivalent as though in the one case a Christian is believing the Bible and in the other case the Christian disbelieves the Bible (or believes "science" instead of the Bible). I would venture to say that even among the most conservative and reformed, there is only a handful of biblical pastors, theologians, or scholars, who believe that the Bible demands geocentrism. So it's dishonest to portray one side only as Bible-believing. Let us be clear that BOTH sides are Bible-believing.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> Let us be clear that BOTH sides are Bible-believing.


I would assert that this discussion cannot move forward until this fact is acknowledged by both sides (although it seems to me to virtually always be the geocentric side that makes these kinds of accusations). Otherwise this thread is just one big _ad hominem_. Almost every thread I've seen on this topic on Puritan Board has devolved, sadly, into precisely that.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> That's not at all what is being presented here and it is quite inappropriate to make the two cases equivalent as though in the one case a Christian is believing the Bible and in the other case the Christian disbelieves the Bible (or believes "science" instead of the Bible). I would venture to say that even among the most conservative and reformed, there is only a handful of biblical pastors, theologians, or scholars, who believe that the Bible demands geocentrism. So it's dishonest to portray one side only as Bible-believing. Let us be clear that BOTH sides are Bible-believing.


I never implied anyone doesn't believe scripture. I am (and CJW) saying that we believe in the simplicity of what we read. Some of us our credobaptist and others paedobaptist, but we all believe scripture. This is not a salvation issue.

Honest question, where do you derive heliocentricity from scripture? Would you come to that conclusion unless it had been taught to you?


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would assert that this discussion cannot move forward until this fact is acknowledged by both sides (although it seems to me to virtually always be the geocentric side that makes these kinds of accusations). Otherwise this thread is just one big _ad hominem_. Almost every thread I've seen on this topic on Puritan Board has devolved, sadly, into precisely that.


No one made that accusation that I recall nor can it be implied because some of us believe what scripture plainly says apart from science.


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Honest question, where do you derive heliocentricity from scripture?


The very premise of this question, it seems to me, assumes too much. It would be like asking, "Where do you get Newton's second law in Scripture?" Such a question assumes that Scripture _actually sets out to teach us_ the laws of thermodynamics and the mechanical structure of the solar system. I would argue that it does neither.


My Pilgrim Way said:


> I never implied anyone doesn't believe scripture.


Yes, you did, right here:


My Pilgrim Way said:


> ...some of us believe what scripture plainly says apart from science.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I never implied anyone doesn't believe scripture. I am (and CJW) saying that we believe in the simplicity of what we read. Some of us our credobaptist and others paedobaptist, but we all believe scripture. This is not a salvation issue.
> 
> Honest question, where do you derive heliocentricity from scripture? Would you come to that conclusion unless it had been taught to you?


I don't see anywhere in Scripture that is intended to teach any kind of model. Neither does it teach anything about electromagnetism or germ theory. Nowhere is there a passage where that is its intended purpose or even in view at all. 

The passage in Joshua doesn't teach a geocentric or a heliocentric view. That's not its purpose. It has to be read into it (inferred). Even heliocentrists say the sun rises and sets. It is language we understand, that makes sense from our point of view. So I think it is begging the question to say that it must mean one thing only in the passage in question.

Here is another example that has actually been used in the past: The Bible says my sin is removed as far as the east is from the west so it clearly teaches that the earth is flat. If it were round then east and west would meet up, so anyone who doesn't believe that isn't believing the simple words of Scripture.

But note that teaching a model of the earth is not the intent of the passage. Now one could argue the poetic nature of the passage is a different genre than the historical one of Joshua, but the same sort of eisogesis is being used.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

Let me be absolutely clear that if the Bible did emphatically state that the earth was in the center of the universe and the stars, sun, and moon revolved around it, I would be the first to jump on board and say let God be true and every man a liar.

But the best case that has been made by any geocentrist is an inference from what seems to me to be normal, every day, anthropocentric language that isn't even intended to teach anything one way or the other about the nature of the universe.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The very premise of this question, it seems to me, assumes too much. It would be like asking, "Where do you get Newton's second law in Scripture?" Such a question assumes that Scripture _actually sets out to teach us_ the laws of thermodynamics and the mechanical structure of the solar system. I would argue that it does neither.
> 
> Yes, you did, right here:


I don't know how you or others interpret scripture. I never said others don't believe scripture. I interpret the plain words about the movement of the sun literally. Does that clarify? 

This has gotten way off from the OP. I was just trying to be helpful to those who might hold to a geocentric view. I provided information to the best of my ability and have been taken to task because I can't explain the physics. Unreal.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

NathanielRCalloway said:


> The issue I'm having is that you assert scripture teaches geocentrism. You point to many passages. But when I ask you to choose a passage and show clearly how geocentrism is drawn out of the text using sound hermeneutics, you simply respond that scripture teaches geocentrism.
> 
> This is akin to prooftexting that leads many souls into error. For example I could use the same prooftexting hermeneutic to prove that beleivers are required to drink poison and handle snakes.


No, it's not akin to that at all. One is dealing with God saying the sun does this or that - something He created. 

I said I believe in geocentrism because I believe the sun moves about the earth not the other way around. I never asserted scripture teaches all the mechanics how that works.


----------



## CJW (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> Let's be clear though that this discussion isn't about believing vs not believing the Bible. I could just as easily say that far greater Christians minds have *not* believed in geocentricity and with that I am content. I believe what the Bible says too. But I disagree that it demands a geocentrist interpretation of the universe.



I’m fine with that! I certainly did not mean to offend in any way. I was only stating my own personal belief on the subject. To our own consciences before our Master we must be true, and I certainly pray you didn’t think I was judging your stance at all. Your belief may be the true one . With that I’ll bow out (and go ponder why I entered in to start with). I’m not scientifically minded (or interested actually) enough to have a dog in this fight. May you have a blessed New Year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Petra (Dec 30, 2020)

Meteorologists still tell us the time of sunrise and sunset.
Hope that helps that even modern man does this.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I provided information to the best of my ability and have been taken to task because I can't explain the physics. Unreal.


Well, you did say this:


My Pilgrim Way said:


> Geocentricity can be mathematically proven. Many of the great scientists haven't been completely honest.


Which at least implies that you understand _how_ it can be proven.


----------



## NathanielRCalloway (Dec 30, 2020)

.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Logan said:


> Let me be absolutely clear that if the Bible did emphatically state that the earth was in the center of the universe and the stars, sun, and moon revolved around it, I would be the first to jump on board and say let God be true and every man a liar.
> 
> But the best case that has been made by any geocentrist is an inference from what seems to me to be normal, every day, anthropocentric language that isn't even intended to teach anything one way or the other about the nature of the universe.


God made the earth first. The sun, moon, and stars came on the 4th day and were placed in the firmament. Earth is not in the firmament.


----------



## Petra (Dec 30, 2020)

Meteorologist, with advanced science degrees, still tell us what time the sunsets and what time the sunrises.
And we aren’t even discussing the worldview of ancient man, nor the point of the text itself.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> God made the earth first.


Sure, along with the heavens. 
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> Well, you did say this:
> 
> Which at least implies that you understand _how_ it can be proven.


Do you men have nothing better to do than nitpick something you have no interest in looking at for yourselves before dismissing it? I understand the concepts set forth but cannot explain the mathematics. I'll leave that to all the really smart people


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I was just trying to be helpful to those who might hold to a geocentric view. I provided information to the best of my ability and have been taken to task because I can't explain the physics. Unreal.


Sister,

The only thing you have been "taken to task" for (if we can even call it that) is the numerous statements you have made that either imply or outright assert that those who hold to a heliocentric theory do not believe by faith the plain words of the Bible, such as...



My Pilgrim Way said:


> I believe God has told us truths about our world and the heavens.


...implying heliocentrists do not...


My Pilgrim Way said:


> Coming to a geocentric point of view happened because I too literally what scripture says...


...implying heliocentrists did not...


My Pilgrim Way said:


> I believe in faith...


...implying heliocentrists do not, and...


My Pilgrim Way said:


> ...some of us believe what scripture plainly says apart from science.


...implying heliocentrists do not.

So, please, do not play the victim here. I would suggest rather cleaning up your rhetoric a bit to make it more charitable, engage with and by means of actual arguments instead of implied _ad hominem_, and tone down the angst a little. Even if we all end up disagreeing here, we can still enjoy fellowship.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 30, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Sister,
> 
> The only thing you have been "taken to task" for (if we can even call it that) is the numerous statements you have made that either imply or outright assert that those who hold to a heliocentric theory do not believe by faith the plain words of the Bible, such as...
> 
> ...


No victim here. I was asked repeatedly to prove or explain things... I'm exasperated by those who say I imply they do not believe scripture because they don't believe as I do. To me, that is uncharitable and simply not true. There's much we probably don't see eye to eye on and yet we all believe scripture. 

I do not apologize for my interpretation. I will apologize if it came across as uncharitable. With that, I will extract myself from this conversation. One day, we'll all understand everything perfectly.


----------



## Petra (Dec 30, 2020)

It’s like BB Warfield and Augustus Strong were some kind of liberals or something.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

Petra said:


> It’s like BB Warfield and Augustus Strong were some kind of liberals or something.


As I just asked that our sister engage by means of actual arguments, I request now that those of us on the other side do, as well. There is no need for this kind of sarcastic non-argument, especially when some of us are trying to bring the thread back into cool-headed reasonableness. It's a disservice to all of us.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Petra (Dec 30, 2020)

It’s cool. I’ve made my small additions.
Grace and Peace to you all.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 30, 2020)

From the perspective of Earth, everything was created in six 24-hour days. From the perspective of Earth, the sun stood still. And regardless of the Earth’s physical location in the universe (which is an improper question if the the universe is unbounded, but would appear very near the center if bounded), it is certainly the theological center.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 30, 2020)

Trying to be a mediating force: I'm convinced that neither view is inconsistent with Scripture, and my understanding is that physics cannot prove either view (Einstein established that, and I don't think he's been disproven).

In the basis of those two axioms, though I follow these discussions with interest, I have no opinion on the subject. Can we all agree that someone can be a consistent Christian and a heliocentrist on the one hand, and that someone can be a geocentrist and not an ignoramus on the other hand?

Certain geocentric models are absurd; so are certain heliocentric models. I know enough about physics to know that I don't know nearly enough about physics to speak with authority about the mechanics of the universe on a broad scale. 

Just a few thoughts from someone squarely in the middle of this interesting debate.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Petra (Dec 30, 2020)

I don’t think the point of the text is to teach either. Neither do I think the meteorologist is a fool for speaking the language of babes, either. Doubt most of them are geocentric in their views.
“Out of the mouth of babes...”

God allows his children to do the story telling
Edit: forgot I was done posting on this thread. Can’t stand this Florida opt out game and was distracted.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 30, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Can we all agree that someone can be a consistent Christian and a heliocentrist on the one hand, and that someone can be a geocentrist and not an ignoramus on the other hand?


This has been the best thing said in this thread. Thank you, brother!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Trying to be a mediating force: I'm convinced that neither view is inconsistent with Scripture, and my understanding is that physics cannot prove either view (Einstein established that, and I don't think he's been disproven).
> 
> In the basis of those two axioms, though I follow these discussions with interest, I have no opinion on the subject. Can we all agree that someone can be a consistent Christian and a heliocentrist on the one hand, and that someone can be a geocentrist and not an ignoramus on the other hand?
> 
> ...



Just to comment on this, I'd be happy to entertain a good geocentrist model but what I have seen so far seems to be more of piecemeal theories: theory A accounts for phenomenon A and theory B accounts for phenomenon B...but theory A and B don't work together. It also typically seems to be post hoc, coming up with explanations for observations to explain away problems but never makes any verifiable predictions of its own.

As to Einstein saying that neither could be proven, if I recall correctly, he was talking about a mathematical model. And that's true, you can pick either frame of reference, and it's pretty much impossible to observe yourself when you are part of the observation, but I have yet to see a physical geocentrist model that accounts for what we do observe. If you have the quote or article I'd be happy to take a look at it again though.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in these fields by any means, but I do think I have a better grasp than most and have read the geocentrist articles and watched videos recommended by people on this board for many years, and so far haven't seen anything that makes me question the current understanding of the physics of the universe, though I'm more than open to a good case.

I'd certainly agree that both sides can be consistent Christians.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

The real problem I see is trying to convince my wife and others of the clearly truthful worldview of Grantocentricity.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Grant said:


> The real problem I see is trying to convince my wife and others of the clearly truthful worldview of Grantocentricity.


Logan, aren’t you employing a bit of snark with your like to this comment since its laughable any of us could actually believe such nonsense?


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Logan, aren’t you employing a bit of snark with your like to this comment since its laughable any of us could actually believe such nonsense?


Not really, it is a joke based on my name and a reflection on my natural flesh to believe the world revolves around me. My statement has ZERO to do with making a case either for or against any planetary model.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Grant said:


> Not really, it is a joke based on my name and a reflection on my natural flesh to believe the world revolves around me. My statement has ZERO to do with making a case either for or against any planetary model.


For those who don’t know that about you or inside jokes, perhaps it’s charitable to disclose.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> For those who don’t know that about you or inside jokes, perhaps it’s charitable to disclose.


It is literally my name, which is reflected in both my PB username and my signature. No offense was intended. It was an attempt to lighten the mood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Logan, aren’t you employing a bit of snark with your like to this comment since its laughable any of us could actually believe such nonsense?


Not in the slightest. I don't believe I've ridiculed or not taken seriously anyone in this thread. With the exception of @Grant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 31, 2020)

Hopefully expressions involving personal feelings, being offended, etc. can be laid aside in this thread ongoing; the OP requested more information and conversation, which needs a better climate to happen and it's worth keeping the thread open for.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Logan said:


> Not in the slightest. I don't believe I've ridiculed or not taken seriously anyone in this thread. With the exception of @Grant.


Please accept my apology. It was not evident to me that what Grant said was an inside joke. Not helpful.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 31, 2020)

Logan said:


> Just to comment on this, I'd be happy to entertain a good geocentrist model but what I have seen so far seems to be more of piecemeal theories: theory A accounts for phenomenon A and theory B accounts for phenomenon B...but theory A and B don't work together. It also typically seems to be post hoc, coming up with explanations for observations to explain away problems but never makes any verifiable predictions of its own.
> 
> As to Einstein saying that neither could be proven, if I recall correctly, he was talking about a mathematical model. And that's true, you can pick either frame of reference, and it's pretty much impossible to observe yourself when you are part of the observation, but I have yet to see a physical geocentrist model that accounts for what we do observe. If you have the quote or article I'd be happy to take a look at it again though.
> 
> ...


I'll just note that up until Henry Morris, there was no organized young earth creation movement to attract scientists and thinkers who could begin to come up with models. (Were there even any public apologists for the hermenuetic that read Genesis as historic narrative?) AiG began in 1980. Now of course the momentum is with those organizations and that hermenuetic in reading Genesis. I'm way over my head in any kind of conversation about models, but do know that every model presented by young earth scientists, even with all the advances in thinking and study, is still laughed to scorn by unbelievers and theistic evolutionists. How useful is a scientific model for those things which we must take by faith? (Hebrews 11:3)

To the OP, one of the best people to read and talk to right now about issues surrounding geocentricity, that I know of, is John Byl (bylogos.blogspot.com).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (Dec 31, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> From the perspective of Earth, everything was created in six 24-hour days. From the perspective of Earth, the sun stood still. And regardless of the Earth’s physical location in the universe (which is an improper question if the the universe is unbounded, but would appear very near the center if bounded), it is certainly the theological center.


Not sure I understand your point. You say that “from the perspective of Earth” both six day creation and the standing still of the sun occurred. Are you referring to an impression of these events from someone observing them as an earth-dweller, with the earth as their reference point, or are you saying both events occurred in time and space as described in Scripture? Could you kindly clarify?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 31, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Not sure I understand your point. You say that “from the perspective of Earth” both six day creation and the standing still of the sun occurred. Are you referring to an impression of these events from someone observing them as an earth-dweller, with the earth as their reference point, or are you saying both events occurred in time and space as described in Scripture? Could you kindly clarify?



I think he means the former, like when we see the sun "rise."


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 31, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Not sure I understand your point. You say that “from the perspective of Earth” both six day creation and the standing still of the sun occurred. Are you referring to an impression of these events from someone observing them as an earth-dweller, with the earth as their reference point, or are you saying both events occurred in time and space as described in Scripture? Could you kindly clarify?


They are absolutely accurate to our experience and everyday language. Regardless of how all the mechanics worked, an observer from earth would never say he saw or felt the earth stop rotating.

For what it's worth, I’m a young creationist, but noncommittal on the heliocentrism debate (at least in terms of debating a side. I find the discussions interesting. I think it is certainly easier to conceive in terms of observing the “motions of the heavens” to be heliocentric).

In terms of science in general, I think we need to get back to understanding that science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Gravity isn’t a _thing _*dictating *how objects relate to one another. It is simply a mathematical description of how God tends to uphold all things by the word of His power. Hawking made gravity a god.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

I'm not sure anyone truly knows the entirety of the movement of the heavens, but I still don't understand how the sun doesn't move or have a course in relation to earth vs. the other way around.

Isaiah 38:8 is another example. In Job 9:7, God commands the sun not to rise. Why does God command the sun if it doesn't move? That is not anthropomorphic like God has hands or eyes.

Here is Matthew Henry on Job;

"Nothing more constant than the rising sun, it never misses its appointed time; yet God, when he pleases, can suspend it. He that at first commanded it to rise can countermand it. Once the sun was told to stand, and another time to retreat, to show that it is still under the check of its great Creator. Thus great is God's power; and how great then is his goodness, which causes his sun to shine even upon the evil and unthankful, though he could withhold it!"

An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it. Yet, God, made man to dwell on earth and set His love and affection on sinful man on the earth! That is where the eyes of the Lord are. If earth is just another sphere orbiting around the sun, what is special about that other than it contains life? Scripture also says the earth has pillars and is immovable. How can an orbiting earth have pillars and why are they necessary? What is even the point of saying it has pillars or is fixed and immovable?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I'm not sure anyone truly knows the entirety of the movement of the heavens, but I still don't understand how the sun doesn't move or have a course in relation to earth vs. the other way around.
> 
> Isaiah 38:8 is another example. In Job 9:7, God commands the sun not to rise. Why does God command the sun if it doesn't move? That is not anthropomorphic like God has hands or eyes.
> 
> ...


Though it may be unwise to jump in to an already heated discussion, I'll have a go at this post of yours, Melissa. First of all, there needs be nothing particularly special about the earth for God to pay extra attention to it: the was nothing particularly special in you or me--just another of humanity's billions in the sea of life, and he set his love on us from eternity past. His way are past searching out--logic cannot plumb them all.
Secondly, the earth having pillars and being immovable describes it in relation to us--we cannot budge it the merest hair's breadth. As far as we're concerned, it's fixed immovably beneath us. To suggest that the pillars of the earth are somehow outside of the earth and holding it up goes against the bit where God hangs the earth on nothing, which you brought up before. The pillars of the earth could easily be the rocky foundations you may have even stood on yourself, and whose tops form the mountains. They need not be the support of the entire planet, which, after all, is hung on nothing, kept it it's place by God who uses gravity and the laws of physics that he established to uphold and direct all creation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it. Yet, God, made man to dwell on earth and set His love and affection on sinful man on the earth! That is where the eyes of the Lord are.


So you are saying that because pagans have worshiped the sun, that this morphed into the belief that earth rotates around the sun? If so, this is a reason I have a hard time taking the geocentrism argument seriously. Far more have and do worship this fading world and all it’s supposed “riches” .... would it then follow that the geocentrism view is likely pagan?

If you keep making the argument from points that both views agree upon, then it becomes hard to see the reasonings. This question is not intended to belittle you at all, I ask sincerely because these same arguments arose in my former SBC church from an elder who went down a YouTube rabbit hole: Do you also hold that the earth is flat?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 31, 2020)

As if pagans don’t worship the earth.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Scripture also says the earth has pillars and is immovable. How can an orbiting earth have pillars and why are they necessary? What is even the point of saying it has pillars or is fixed and immovable?


Melissa, John Gill says on this language in the Psalms: "...for though by the fire, at the general conflagration, the heavens and the earth will be so melted and dissolved as to lose their present form, and shall be purged and purified from all noxious qualities, the effects of sin; yet the substance will remain, out of which will be formed new heavens and a new earth, and this through the power of Christ sustaining it, and preserving it from entire destruction or annihilation. R. Obadiah by "pillars" understands in a figurative sense the righteous, for whose sake the world is continued in its being; these at the general conflagration will be bore up and preserved by Christ, whom they shall meet in the air, even the church, who is the pillar and ground of truth; and not only the ministers of the Gospel, who are pillars in Christ's house, but also every believer, which is a pillar there, that shall never go out, 1 Timothy 3:15. Aben Ezra and Kimchi interpret the pillars of the mountains."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Melissa, John Gill says on this language in the Psalms: "...for though by the fire, at the general conflagration, the heavens and the earth will be so melted and dissolved as to lose their present form, and shall be purged and purified from all noxious qualities, the effects of sin; yet the substance will remain, out of which will be formed new heavens and a new earth, and this through the power of Christ sustaining it, and preserving it from entire destruction or annihilation. R. Obadiah by "pillars" understands in a figurative sense the righteous, for whose sake the world is continued in its being; these at the general conflagration will be bore up and preserved by Christ, whom they shall meet in the air, even the church, who is the pillar and ground of truth; and not only the ministers of the Gospel, who are pillars in Christ's house, but also every believer, which is a pillar there, that shall never go out, 1 Timothy 3:15. Aben Ezra and Kimchi interpret the pillars of the mountains."


Thank you. I understand about the pillars not necessarily being fixed on nothingness and was probably a bad example. It still doesn't answer my question about the sun and its apparent motion.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Grant said:


> So you are saying that because pagans have worshiped the sun, that this morphed into the belief that earth rotates around the sun? If so, this is a reason I have a hard time taking the geocentrism argument seriously. Far more have and do worship this fading world and all it’s supposed “riches” .... would it then follow that the geocentrism view is likely pagan?
> 
> If you keep making the argument from points that both views agree upon, then it becomes hard to see the reasonings. This question is not intended to belittle you at all, I ask sincerely because these same arguments arose in my former SBC church from an elder who went down a YouTube rabbit hole: Do you also hold that the earth is flat?


Not saying that. 

Just my own thoughts: helio - sun centric - center. Much like Christocentric. It is the object being worshiped and of most importance.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> Though it may be unwise to jump in to an already heated discussion, I'll have a go at this post of yours, Melissa. First of all, there needs be nothing particularly special about the earth for God to pay extra attention to it: the was nothing particularly special in you or me--just another of humanity's billions in the sea of life, and he set his love on us from eternity past. His way are past searching out--logic cannot plumb them all.
> Secondly, the earth having pillars and being immovable describes it in relation to us--we cannot budge it the merest hair's breadth. As far as we're concerned, it's fixed immovably beneath us. To suggest that the pillars of the earth are somehow outside of the earth and holding it up goes against the bit where God hangs the earth on nothing, which you brought up before. The pillars of the earth could easily be the rocky foundations you may have even stood on yourself, and whose tops form the mountains. They need not be the support of the entire planet, which, after all, is hung on nothing, kept it it's place by God who uses gravity and the laws of physics that he established to uphold and direct all creation.


I agree about the pillars and wasn't the best example. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Yes, nothing special about us, but we are made in God's image and He sent His son to earth so sinners may be reconciled to Him. In that sense, He does set His love and affection on man over all other creation.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> Not saying that.
> 
> Just my own thoughts: helio - sun centric - center. Much like Christocentric. It is the object being worshiped and of most importance.


Melissa, it still seems you are because you seem to restate it in other words in this reinsert post as well. So by that logic could one Not say:

“Geo - earth centric - center. So worshipping the earth” ?


----------



## hammondjones (Dec 31, 2020)

Heliocentrism is a shorthand anyway. The planets do not obit the sun, but rather the solar system's barycenter - the center of mass of the solar system. The sun itself orbits the solar system barycenter, which incidentally is not always, though usually, within the bounds of the solar mass itself.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Grant said:


> Melissa, it still seems you are because you seem to restate it in other words in this reinsert post as well. So by that logic could one Not say:
> 
> “Geo - earth centric - center. So worshipping the earth” ?


I see your point. Wasn't what I was aiming for.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> I see your point. Wasn't what I was aiming for.


For what it’s worth I am still very thankful these discussions come up. I certainly, currently at least, do not hold to geocentrism. However, seeing how it does come up in reading some reformed and Puritan works, I think it is still helpful to wrestle with and chew on. I still appreciate there being board members who hold the view.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Dec 31, 2020)

Grant said:


> For what it’s worth I am still very thankful these discussions come up. I certainly, currently at least, do not hold to geocentrism. However, seeing how it does come up in reading some reformed and Puritan works, I think it is still helpful to wrestle with a chew on. I still appreciate there being board members who hold the view.


Thanks. I've probably contributed all I'm able.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 31, 2020)

Hey OP, haven't had time to read the whole thread so sorry if any of this is a dupe. 

This has a lot of information from Robert Sungenis:





__





Home | robertsungenis.com







galileowaswrong.com





Lovely set of quotes:









Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes


I've gone through the Stationary Earth thread and ordered the quotes into easily searchable categories here. Just click on the links below and it will take you




christian-wilderness.forumvi.com





Somebody mentioned Malcolm Bowden. He is good for a basic easy to understand introduction to this. He was my introduction back in the 90s (book, before youtube). 

Barry Setterfield I don't think is geo, might be, but his work on the decaying speed of light since creation figures in to some of the concepts. 

Somewhere in the endless threads on this I posted the Time Magazine Man of the Century 2000 article about Einstein. It states right there in the liberal glory of that magazine that for decades scientists were stumped by the experimental proofs that the earth was at rest. Along came the genius of Einstein who figured out that light does not behave like all the other waves where we add and subtract velocity measurements as we move to or from a wave source. No, as we spin towards a star on one side of our alleged orbit, and away from the star six months later on the other side of our orbit, the light from the star will measure the same, unlike all other waves. Voila, problem solved. 

The real debate now is not geocentricity versus heliocentricity. It is the theory of relativity versus classic wave physics, and how does light really behave. The geocentrists have numerous rebuttals of the theory of relativity and the supposed proofs of relativity. Its a debate right up there with proofs of evolution or the earth being billions of years old vs the proofs that Darwin and old earth are wrong. 

At the end of the day you can find somebody on both sides to prove that their position is the right one, so you can't escape a leap of faith. You have to choose Einstein or literal scripture.


----------



## 83r17h (Dec 31, 2020)

lynnie said:


> The real debate now is not geocentricity versus heliocentricity. It is the theory of relativity versus classic wave physics, and how does light really behave. The geocentrists have numerous rebuttals of the theory of relativity and the supposed proofs of relativity. Its a debate right up there with proofs of evolution or the earth being billions of years old vs the proofs that Darwin and old earth are wrong.



If the problem is relativity, then there's pretty convincing evidence for it. We all use GPS. But, GPS satellites travel at high enough velocities in orbit that special relativity becomes an important factor in getting the equations and algorithms correct, and general relativity's effect on time from gravity (based on the gravity difference between orbit and ground) also has an effect. Basically, if we discounted relativity, GPS wouldn't work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 31, 2020)

83r17h said:


> If the problem is relativity,


I don't think that's the issue. Agreeing with your point, I really don't think Einstein needs to be pitted against Scripture here.

His theory is based on and supported by observations. Those observations may be mind-blowing in some ways, but they are measurable and usable.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 31, 2020)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it.


Figuratively, sure. Literally, pagans never taught heliocentricism. I hope you don't intend to imply that heliocentrists are more pagan than geocentrists. As for your question of what would be special about the earth if it's not the center of the universe,
1) it was made for the habitation of mankind, who is made in the image of God.
2) it was here that God first manifested himself to mankind.
3) it was here that Christ the Son of God became man, lived, suffered, died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven
4) it is here that he will return to judge the living and the dead.
5) it is the dwelling place of the holy catholic church, where we have the communion of the saints militant, and where we prepare for a heavenly inheritance.
I hope that you share my belief that all of those things are more important than the earth's physical location. I would also like to note that if the center of the universe is really more important than the rest, and the earth is at the center, then the center of the earth must be more important than the surface, where all of those things take place, because it would be the absolute center of the universe. And that strikes me as a little absurd.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 31, 2020)

83r17h said:


> If the problem is relativity, then there's pretty convincing evidence for it. We all use GPS. But, GPS satellites travel at high enough velocities in orbit that special relativity becomes an important factor in getting the equations and algorithms correct, and general relativity's effect on time from gravity (based on the gravity difference between orbit and ground) also has an effect. Basically, if we discounted relativity, GPS wouldn't work.


There are physicists and astronomers and mathematicians in the geocentric camp who would disagree, and all this is covered in detail in their research. But I just don't have time to go looking for articles. I figure if people are open they will check out available literature. One of the most technical guys is Gerardus Bouw. A while ago Martin Selbrede of Chalcedon did some talks on this too. You can discount relativity and everything works just fine. 

I can't remember how far out "earth" goes when you talk about being at rest and the daily rotation of the universe (which is nowhere near as far away as claimed, see Setterfield). I don't remember where satellites are, ie, in the rest part or the rotating part. I'm vaguely thinking rotating but I could be wrong. Its all out there in the literature though. Fascinating stuff. Geocentricity is based on and supported by observations....and the effect of the rotating universe causes the phenomena attributed to heliocentricity.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jan 1, 2021)

For those who are against reading “sunrise”-type language in scripture phenomenologically, do you think the Sun and Moon are actually the largest objects in the universe outside of Earth?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> For those who are against reading “sunrise”-type language in scripture phenomenologically, do you think the Sun and Moon are actually the largest objects in the universe outside of Earth?


I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)

In turn, I’m interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 can be taken phenomenologically. Would like to understand that thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)



Because the Sun was created to be the ruler in the sky during the day and the moon rules the outer space. Yet we know they aren't the biggest objects in space.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)
> 
> In turn, I’m interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 can be taken phenomenologically. Would like to understand that thinking.


Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## ZackF (Jan 1, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.


That’s interesting on both accounts as the moon has about the worse albedo possible.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Because the Sun was created to be the ruler in the sky during the day and the moon rules the outer space. Yet we know they aren't the biggest objects in space.


Is there something in the Hebrew that necessitates the sun and the moon being the biggest objects in space? And I've never heard that the moon rules outer space; Genesis says that God made the moon to rule the night.


Eyedoc84 said:


> Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.


Well the moon is a luminary, it gives off light. The moon and the planets as well as the sun are all luminaries.
I am not seeing the issues in the text you guys are apparently seeing.

John Gill says of Genesis 1:14-16:

"And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven,.... To continue there as luminous bodies; as enlighteners, as the word signifies, causing light, or as being the instruments of conveying it, particularly to the earth, as follows:

to give light upon the earth; and the inhabitants of it, when formed:

and it was so: these lights were formed and placed in the firmament of the heaven for such uses, and served such purposes as God willed and ordered they should."

Gill continues, "...this [the sun] is called the "greater" light, in comparison of the moon, not only with respect to its body or substance, but on account of its light, which is far greater and stronger than that of the moon; and which indeed receives its light from it, the moon being, as is generally said, an opaque body:

...'and the lesser light to rule the night'; to give light then, though in a fainter, dimmer way, by reflecting it from the sun; and it rules alone, the sun being absent from the earth, and is of great use to travellers and sailors; it is called the lesser light, in comparison of the sun."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Is there something in the Hebrew that necessitates the sun and the moon being the biggest objects in space? And I've never heard that the moon rules outer space; Genesis says that God made the moon to rule the night.



Usually the ruler is the biggest object


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Usually the ruler is the biggest object


Where do you get that? I asked earlier, is this assertion based on something in the Hebrew that doesn't show up in our translation? I see "rule" transliterated is _memshalah_, which Strong's defines in terms of dominion and government, and not size.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

And I’m still interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 is properly taken phenomenologically.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Where do you get that? I asked earlier, is this assertion based on something in the Hebrew that doesn't show up in our translation? I see "rule" transliterated is _memshalah_, which Strong's defines in terms of dominion and government, and not size.



It doesn't have to be size, I guess. But we have to realize that ancient man wouldn't have had our modern cosmology and would have thought it common sense that the sun is bigger than some star light years away, even though in actual fact it isn't. 

To make matters worse: by the same standard of reasoning, does the earth have corners, per Psalm 95 and passim? Is Sheol a big hole underground (which, interestingly, would validate a hollow earth. I'm not opposed to that idea)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> And I’m still interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 is properly taken phenomenologically.



For me to explain the how of it, phenomenologically, I would have had to be there. That's the whole point behind phenomenological explanations. I can do that with the sun rise, because I see it every day.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> have to realize that ancient man wouldn't have had our modern cosmology and would have thought it common sense that the sun is bigger than some star light years away


That's neither here nor there. The point is, what did God reveal to us about these luminaries?


BayouHuguenot said:


> To make matters worse: by the same standard of reasoning, does the earth have corners


What are these matters made worse by this question... and what standard of reasoning do you refer to? 
I think the corners of the earth refers to the extremities of the earth; north, south, east, and west.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That's neither here nor there. The point is, what did God reveal to us about these luminaries?



It is exactly here and there. God revealed to man according to man's capacity to understand (Calvin: "God lisped"). If God chose to reveal to man but only in terms of relativity and quantum mechanics, he would have failed in his revelation.


Jeri Tanner said:


> What are these matters made worse by this question...



It would imply flat earth, or at least a non-spherical earth.


Jeri Tanner said:


> and what standard of reasoning do you refer to?



I have no idea what that question means.


Jeri Tanner said:


> I think the corners of the earth refers to the extremities of the earth; north, south, east, and west.



Doesn't sound literal. Sounds metaphorical, almost phenomenological.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For me to explain the how of it, phenomenologically, I would have had to be there. That's the whole point behind phenomenological explanations. I can do that with the sun rise, because I see it every day.


I meant explain how an event described as happening in space and time (in a historical narrative of Scripture) can be taken phenomenologically. The texts in Joshua and Isaiah have markers of time and measurement in them: "for about a day" and the sun returning "10 degrees."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Well, this could go on and on I guess.  If someone is interested in commenting on Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38 as to how it is to be taken phenomenologically, that would be helpful.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But we have to realize that ancient man wouldn't have had our modern cosmology and would have thought it common sense that the sun is bigger than some star light years away, even though in actual fact it isn't.


This sounds to me like a mistake that man would make that is not inherent in the text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jan 1, 2021)

God made “two great lights”. Yet they are not the biggest or brightest absolutely. Not even the most important in terms of how the universe functions. They are only so in terms of how we experience them. I submit that every single one of us reads this text phenomenologically. 

In terms of the texts, yes, the sun did stop/move backwards...to any observer on earth using common everyday language. It is not wrong.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timmay (Jan 1, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I don't think that's the issue. Agreeing with your point, I really don't think Einstein needs to be pitted against Scripture here.
> 
> His theory is based on and supported by observations. Those observations may be mind-blowing in some ways, but they are measurable and usable.



Relativity is the problem? How is it that it’s refuted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

The two lights are great lights. They are not said in the text to be the greatest (unless that is implied in the Hebrew). But since the earth is the universe's theological center, they are THE most important physical lights for the universe's functioning.

The key for me with Josh. 10 and other similar passages is that exegetically, one is forced to say "the sun moves." It is not presented as phenomenology. We are not at liberty to say "the earth actually stopped" in the exegesis of the text: saying "the earth actually stopped" is an abstraction based on our modern scientific understanding. The text requires us to say (whatever our scientific theories may be to understand the statement) the sun really moves.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> In terms of the texts, yes, the sun did stop/move backwards...to any observer on earth using common everyday language. It is not wrong.


Ok; who is speaking in the text? Whose voice tells us that the sun stood still for about a day? If your answer is Joshua, and not the Holy Spirit... can you cite another text where the narrator of a historical passage gives us untrue information because he didn't understand what he was seeing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jan 1, 2021)

No other star is called great. There are great lights, and regular lights.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 1, 2021)

Timmay said:


> Relativity is the problem? How is it that it’s refuted?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't think it was the problem. I wasn't interested in refuting it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...can you cite another text where the narrator of a historical passage gives us untrue information because he didn't understand what he was seeing?


Loaded question

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I meant explain how an event described as happening in space and time (in a historical narrative of Scripture) can be taken phenomenologically. The texts in Joshua and Isaiah have markers of time and measurement in them: "for about a day" and the sun returning "10 degrees."



That's the issue. I don't believe the sun literally stopped moving (or started to move in the first place). It appeared such. that's the definition of phenomenological.


----------



## 83r17h (Jan 1, 2021)

Timmay said:


> Relativity is the problem? How is it that it’s refuted?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Like @VictorBravo I don't think relativity is a problem one way or another. I was originally attempting to demonstrate that there's very good evidence supporting it. I'm still not exactly sure why some geocentric arguments find it necessary to challenge relativity.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

83r17h said:


> Like @VictorBravo I don't think relativity is a problem one way or another. I was originally attempting to demonstrate that there's very good evidence supporting it. I'm still not exactly sure why some geocentric arguments find it necessary to challenge relativity.


The reason they do it is because they believe that M-M implies the earth is standing still if relativity is incorrect.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Loaded question fallacy


Well let me ask you then in an unloaded way.  Do you believe the narrator of Joshua 10 is Joshua inspired by the Holy Spirit? And that Joshua under inspiration reported the sun's movement as fact, which was in fact not true, because he misinterpreted what he saw?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Do you believe the narrator of Joshua 10 is Joshua inspired by the Holy Spirit?


Absolutely.


Jeri Tanner said:


> And that Joshua under inspiration reported the sun's movement as fact, which was in fact not true, because he misinterpreted what he saw?


Still a loaded question. You are assuming in the very premise of your question that phenomenological language is in fact misinterpretation. It is not.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Still a loaded question. You are assuming in the very premise of your question that phenomenological language is in fact misinterpretation. It is not.


Which brings me back full circle as I've asked several times (maybe you'll answer this, Taylor): how, using the proper hermenuetic in exegeting a historical narrative, can the events and narrative (language) of Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38 be taken phenomenologically?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Which brings me back full circle as I've asked several times (maybe you'll answer this, Taylor): how, using the proper hermenuetic in exegeting a historical narrative, can the events and narrative (language) of Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38 be taken phenomenologically?


The same way I take what the weatherman says every morning when he tells me what time the sun rose.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The same way I take what the weatherman says every morning when he tells me what time the sun rose.


Ok, well I'll leave it at that. It's disappointing that no one wishes to deal with these passages! Perhaps someone at some point will be willing to do so, either to show, as Raymond mentioned above (post #155), why they cannot be taken as phenomenological, or why they must be taken so.


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

I hadn't thought of it specifically before, but I guess it is true that when we read "the two great lights" to rule the day and to rule the night, we automatically read it from the perspective of the earth, and rightfully so. The passage is not intended to communicate that these are the rulers of the entire universe, but the rulers from man's perspective.

As to Jeri's question, if a heliocentrist were to be present in Joshua's time, I have no doubt he would have used very similar language to speak of the sun standing still. Like all the historical accounts, it seems intended to communicate what happened from man's perspective to man, not from a distant neutral perspective.

I struggle to see how communicating in normal, every day language undermines the reliability of the Holy Spirit's communication to us. I have no idea of the mechanics of how God stopped the sun in the sky, but I believe that he did and I don't believe the description of that reflects on the orbital relationship one iota one way or the other.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok, well I'll leave it at that. It's disappointing that no one wishes to deal with these passages! Perhaps someone at some point will be willing to do so, either to show, as Raymond mentioned above (post #155), why they cannot be taken as phenomenological, or why they must be taken so.


Sister,

I have to confess, I found this to be a very frustrating and dismissive response. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for when you ask for someone to "show" how these passages are supposed to be read. There is nothing in Hebrew (or Greek, or English, or probably any other language) that tells the reader, "Hey, what you're reading here is phenomenological language." The way language works is that the receiver typically will know when such conventions are being used. There's nothing to be "shown" here. What are you looking for?

But regardless of what you're looking for, the response you gave to me here was not the way to encourage further discussion with you.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Sister,
> 
> I have to confess, I found this to be a very frustrating, rude, and dismissive response. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for when you ask for someone to "show" how these passages are supposed to be read. There is nothing in Hebrew (or Greek, or English, or probably any other language) that tells the reader, "Hey, what you're reading here is phenomenological language." The way language works is that the receiver typically will know when such conventions are being used. There's nothing to be "shown" here. What are you looking for?
> 
> But regardless of what you're looking for, the response you gave to me here was not the way to encourage further discussion with you.


Didn’t mean to be rude Taylor.  I took from your last short response that the conversation was over. I’d have thought that the request to “show” how the passage can be taken phenomenologically, would be understood to mean exegete the passage according to sound hermeneutical principles. It’s a historical narrative; what place is there in a historical narrative for phenomenological language? Is there any other historical narrative in the Bible where this occurs? Gordon Fee says of historical narratives, “Narratives record what happened.” Where is the place in a biblical narrative for the insertion of an observation based on the narrator’s mistaken interpretation of what he saw?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Hi Jeri, I had another thought and I think I've shared this before. Basically I think we often get ingrained in a perspective and it's hard to see the other perspective,

But imagine if you will that the model God created is a heliocentric one (or one where smaller bodies orbit greater bodies) and try this mental exercise: How would the Spirit communicate, through the Biblical author, the events of Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38? Would it be something along the lines of "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still but God understood the outcome he truly intended and instead stopped the earth's rotation so that the sun didn't move out of the sky from Joshua's point of view"? Or do you have a different suggestion? I would posit that he would still communicate it in _exactly the same way that he did_.

Which is why I'm convinced that the passage doesn't make a comment on any celestial model one way or the other. The sun stopped in the sky. How? We don't know whether it was the earth's rotation or the universe's rotation or some combination or something else. But it did and was a wonderful miracle!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Mmm, sorry, but just one more point. Even those advocating reading a it as "the sun stopped therefore it's the sun that moves and not the earth", read it a bit phenomenologically. The passage says "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed".

But none of us takes that to strictly to mean that the sun hung like a New Year's ball exactly over Gibeon, regardless of one's perspective, but from Joshua's perspective. If one had been in a different latitude or longitude, it would have looked like it hung over a different location, but that doesn't make it a less historically accurate account.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Petra (Jan 1, 2021)

Wouldn’t the earth stop rotating for the sun to stand still? Or do geocentric beliefs hold that the earth doesn’t rotate on its axis (or wobble)?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> Hi Jeri, I had another thought and I think I've shared this before. Basically I think we often get ingrained in a perspective and it's hard to see the other perspective,
> 
> But imagine if you will that the model God created is a heliocentric one (or one where smaller bodies orbit greater bodies) and try this mental exercise: How would the Spirit communicate, through the Biblical author, the events of Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38? Would it be something along the lines of "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still but God understood the outcome he truly intended and instead stopped the earth's rotation so that the sun didn't move out of the sky from Joshua's point of view"? Or do you have a different suggestion? I would posit that he would still communicate it in _exactly the same way that he did_.
> 
> Which is why I'm convinced that the passage doesn't make a comment on any celestial model one way or the other. The sun stopped in the sky. How? We don't know whether it was the earth's rotation or the universe's rotation or some combination or something else. But it did and was a wonderful miracle!


Logan, I just think that the Holy Spirit told us what happened. The passage says that Joshua spoke to the Lord, and what he said to the Lord(!) was “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” Then the Bible tells us that the sun stood still and the moon stayed. It goes on to say that “there was no day like that before or after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man.” It’s just remarkable! Joshua was speaking to God when he commanded the sun, and there was nothing like it before or since. The markers of the time that the sun and moon halted (“about a day”); all that makes it impossible for me to get around this being an account of what took place in every detail.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> How would the Spirit communicate, through the Biblical author, the events of Joshua 10 and Isaiah 38? Would it be something along the lines of "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still but God understood the outcome he truly intended and instead stopped the earth's rotation so that the sun didn't move out of the sky from Joshua's point of view"? Or do you have a different suggestion? I would posit that he would still communicate it in _exactly the same way that he did_.


This is speculation. We do not know what he would or would not have done. Someone could make the same thought experiment about some miracle of Christ, saying the miracle was not what it appeared to be because of our scientific understanding, and that the language would be communicated in the same way.

I think this issue is complicated by what is meant by "geocentricity." People are defending different versions. And a lack of understanding of how theology and cosmology and physics are intertwined, as well as what we mean when we say something "really" happened. Maybe I will elaborate on this sentence later. For my own part, I only hold an exegetical geocentrism at the level of the text, but at the level of abstraction, I reconcile it with relativity and a preferred frame. Heliocentrism is not false, and a geocentrist need not say otherwise.


----------



## Petra (Jan 1, 2021)

Does the earth rotate on its axis or not?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> Mmm, sorry, but just one more point. Even those advocating reading a it as "the sun stopped therefore it's the sun that moves and not the earth", read it a bit phenomenologically. The passage says "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed".
> 
> But none of us takes that to strictly to mean that the sun hung like a New Year's ball exactly over Gibeon, regardless of one's perspective, but from Joshua's perspective. If one had been in a different latitude or longitude, it would have looked like it hung over a different location, but that doesn't make it a less historically accurate account.


That sounds right but you’re talking about simply a matter of location, not the reality of what happened. I don’t think what you bring up is a phenomenological issue? Unless I’m misunderstanding.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...what place is there in a historical narrative for phenomenological language?


Where is there a rule that says narrative cannot use phenomenological language? I'm not aware of one.


Jeri Tanner said:


> Is there any other historical narrative in the Bible where this occurs?


The problem with answering this question is that, even if examples could be given, you have prejudged as a matter of principle that such occurrence must of necessity be something else. It's like when an atheist says, "Miracles cannot happen because they're impossible." Well, such a presupposition makes substantive interaction well nigh impossible.


Jeri Tanner said:


> Gordon Fee says of historical narratives, “Narratives record what happened.”


Yes, and phenomenological language doesn't prohibit or contradict that. As a matter of historical fact, due to the earth's rotation, I saw the sun set a little while ago.


Jeri Tanner said:


> Where is the place in a biblical narrative for the insertion of an observation based on the narrator’s mistaken interpretation of what he saw?


Loaded question.


----------



## Timmay (Jan 1, 2021)

Ok so as I understand it the Saganc Effect seems to demonstrate that light is not constant , it is variable, and thus time would be constant. If light is not constant, then relativity is debunked and then.....what’s the implication here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That sounds right but you’re talking about simply a matter of location, not the reality of what happened. I don’t think what you bring up is a phenomenological issue? Unless I’m misunderstanding.


Did the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon over Ajalon? Yes, from Joshua's point of view but not from the perspective of someone in a different latitude/longitude.
Did the sun stand still in the sky? Yes, from Joshua's point of view.

You seem to agree that the former is not a universal truth, but a description from a certain perspective. Yet you seem to believe that the the latter _is_ a universal truth, _regardless_ of perspective. Are you reading them both with the same perspective?



Afterthought said:


> This is speculation. We do not know what he would or would not have done. Someone could make the same thought experiment about some miracle of Christ, saying the miracle was not what it appeared to be because of our scientific understanding, and that the language would be communicated in the same way.


Sure it's speculation. I said as much. But I would venture to say it is a useful one. If both perspectives reconcile perfectly to the language the Bible uses, and the passage isn't intended to teach either, then it can't be said that the passage _demands_ one or the other. And it does not mean that one devolves immediately into liberalism and starts explaining away all miracles. 

If you want to go that path, it would be more akin to someone saying they believe that Christ's feeding of the five thousand involved atomic recombination or antimatter or some such thing. They can believe that if they want to, the passage doesn't demand the method of the miracle. But it's still a miracle.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’d have thought that the request to “show” how the passage can be taken phenomenologically, would be understood to mean exegete the passage according to sound hermeneutical principles. It’s a historical narrative; what place is there in a historical narrative for phenomenological language? Is there any other historical narrative in the Bible where this occurs? Gordon Fee says of historical narratives, “Narratives record what happened.” Where is the place in a biblical narrative for the insertion of an observation based on the narrator’s mistaken interpretation of what he saw?


I agree and all that have read this account without what modern-day scientists say, believed the account as it's recorded. God could have easily said the earth stood still. He did not. He could have said the earth has a course, but He said the sun does over and over.

We are to come to God as little children by faith. Even the least learned child of God can believe the scriptures by faith without having a PhD in science.

Also, it was a miracle performed by God. Are we to also discount other miracles such as turning water into wine, healing the withered hand, etc? Where does it stop?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Petra (Jan 1, 2021)

Ancient worldiews as God condescends to human speech


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> ...all that have read this account without modern-day scientists say, believed the account as it's recorded.


How do you know this?


My Pilgrim Way said:


> God could have easily said the earth stood still. He did not. He could have said the earth has a course, but He said the sun does over and over.


I could use this logic to disprove the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Where is there a rule that says narrative cannot use phenomenological language? I'm not aware of one.
> 
> The problem with answering this question is that, even if examples could be given, you have prejudged as a matter of principle that such occurrence must of necessity be something else. It's like when an atheist says, "Miracles cannot happen because they're impossible." Well, such a presupposition makes substantive interaction well nigh impossible.
> 
> ...


Ok thanks, Taylor. One last question that may be more helpful: do you agree or disagree with the view implied by Raymond in post #155: “The key for me with Josh. 10 and other similar passages is that exegetically, one is forced to say 'the sun moves.' It is not presented as phenomenology"; the implication being that phenomenological statements or passages can be recognized exegetically as such? Sorry if


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...do you agree or disagree with the view implied by Raymond in post #155: “The key for me with Josh. 10 and other similar passages is that exegetically, one is forced to say 'the sun moves.' It is not presented as phenomenology"; the implication being that phenomenological statements or passages can be recognized exegetically as such?


What does it mean to be "presented as phenomenology"? That has not yet been answered or defined.


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> We are to come to God as little children by faith. Even the least learned child of God can believe the scriptures by faith without having a PhD in science.
> 
> Also, it was a miracle performed by God. Are we to also discount other miracles such as turning water into wine, healing the withered hand, etc? Where does it stop?



Please stop devolving to this level. No one here is in danger of doubting the veracity of the Bible or miracles.

The issue here is NOT one of faith vs non-faith; belief vs unbelief. I too believe the Bible when it says that the sun stood still! The question is whether one can deduce the mechanics of that from this passage, and I contest it's not meant to make a statement on the mechanics either way.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> What does it mean to be "presented as phenomenology"? That has not yet been answered or defined.


Markers in the text itself that point to the thing observed being a mere appearance and not the reality. From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> Markers in the text itself that point to the thing observed being a mere appearance and not the reality.


What would these markers be?


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> What would these markers be?


Sorry, I just edited my post with an example.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> I could use this logic to disprove the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.


How do you know, "In the beginning, God..."? By faith, because He tells you. Can you explain how He always was without beginning or end? 

Honestly, this line of reasoning could go on and on, but I'm jumping off


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Timmay said:


> Ok so as I understand it the Saganc Effect seems to demonstrate that light is not constant , it is variable, and thus time would be constant. If light is not constant, then relativity is debunked and then.....what’s the implication here?



Hey Timmay! I'd love to dig into this more. What is it about the Sagnac Effect you're reading up on? I'm pretty sure it jives with relativity just fine in a rotating frame.


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> Please stop devolving to this level. No one here is in danger of doubting the veracity of the Bible or miracles.
> 
> The issue here is NOT one of faith vs non-faith; belief vs unbelief. I too believe the Bible when it says that the sun stood still! The question is whether one can deduce the mechanics of that from this passage, and I contest it's not meant to make a statement on the mechanics either way.


Then, how could it stand still if it isn't moving, Logan? Rhetorical, btw as I'm not engaging anymore.

Please stop with the reasoning that I'm saying one has faith and another doesn't.


----------



## Timmay (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> Hey Timmay! I'd love to dig into this more. What is it about the Sagnac Effect you're reading up on? I'm pretty sure it jives with relativity just fine in a rotating frame.



I read this. I’m not qualified to analyze it but it sounded convincing.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> Markers in the text itself that point to the thing observed being a mere appearance and not the reality. From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."


Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> From what I understand, "in" and "upon" are fairly expandable in Hebrew and need not be understood woodenly. Likewise, in other places of Scripture we have markers such as, "like unto."


Yes, those can in some cases be exegetical _clues_ (not _indicators_ or _markers_; EDIT: see below). But the problem in your logic, though, is you are trying to make a deductive conclusion based on inductive premises:

P1: Many phenomenological passages in the Bible contain exegetical clues.​P2: This biblical passage does not contain such exegetical clues.​C: Therefore, this passage is not phenomenological.​
This argument would only work if we changed "many" in the first premise to "all." The problem is, though, that there are many metaphorical passages in Scripture that do _not_ contain these exegetical clues, such as when Scripture says that God _has_ hands (not has something "like unto" hands). Of course, we know he doesn't because of clear teaching elsewhere, but the point is that these metaphorical statement have no exegetical clues within them, which means changing "many" to "all" in P1 would in order to make the argument deductive would make P1 false.



My Pilgrim Way said:


> How do you know, "In the beginning, God..."? By faith, because He tells you. Can you explain how He always was without beginning or end?


I was asking how you know that "*all* that have read this account without what modern-day scientists say, believed the account as it's recorded." That's a very large claim to prove.



My Pilgrim Way said:


> Honestly, this line of reasoning could go on and on, but I'm jumping off





My Pilgrim Way said:


> I'm not engaging anymore.


You keep saying this, but then you keep coming back and saying weird things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri, I think we might come to an understanding on the hermeneutic question if you could think about this one question:

The text says Joshua commanded "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" and the Lord hearkened to his voice. Did the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon from every perspective on earth or universe?

Don't we read that as being from Joshua's vantage point on the earth and not as though the sun is a little ball several hundred feet above the valley that appears to be stopping above it regardless of where the observer is?

Aren't we employing some "phenomenological" reading when we do that?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?


The term "marker" is an incorrect term in this context. There is a big difference in language between a "marker" and a simple exegetical or contextual clue. There are "markers" in language for things time, grammar, etc., but there are not "markers" that mark metaphor and phenomenology.


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Timmay said:


> I read this. I’m not qualified to analyze it but it sounded convincing.
> 
> http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html



I don't know that I'm qualified either but I think they do mention up front the non-rotating issue. I believe that was included in a subsequent iteration of the special relativity equations (initially Einstein was thinking only in linear frames of reference) so I don't think that's been a concern for quite some time. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> Jeri, I think we might come to an understanding on the hermeneutic question if you could think about this one question:
> 
> The text says Joshua commanded "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" and the Lord hearkened to his voice. Did the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon from every perspective on earth or universe?
> 
> Don't we read that as being from Joshua's vantage point on the earth and not as though the sun is a little ball several hundred feet above the valley that appears to be stopping above it regardless of where the observer is?


My off the cuff answer (dangerous, have to retract too many of those) would be sure, this is where the sun was overhead when Joshua commanded it; and it stood still at that spot. Others far away would see different landmarks, but also see that the sun had stopped its course across the sky. I don't think this makes the narrator's account phenomenological though. Am I missing something? (Likely.)


----------



## Petra (Jan 1, 2021)

Maybe the hermeneutic, which doesn’t take into account that God is condescending down to the level of ancient man to express theological truths, actually creates more liberalism?


----------



## Logan (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My off the cuff answer (dangerous, have to retract too many of those) would be sure, this is where the sun was overhead when Joshua commanded it; and it stood still at that spot. Others far away would see different landmarks, but also see that the sun had stopped its course across the sky. I don't think this makes the narrator's account phenomenological though. Am I missing something? (Likely.)



So here is what I'm getting at:
Joshua commanded the sun to stand over a specific place and God listened to him. We agree (at least in your off-the-cuff answer) that this was from Joshua's point of view, however, and not a universal point of view regardless where you are on the earth or universe.

So if that is only from Joshua's perspective, then why can't the sun stopping in the sky also be from Joshua's perspective? Why the shift in frame of reference from the individual's in the one to a universal in the other?

I read both as being from Joshua's perspective. You seem to read one as being from Joshua's and the other being a universal perspective. So the proposal is that just as there is no disservice to the veracity of the text by believing the one is Joshua's perspective (over the valley), so neither is believing the second to also be Joshua's perspective (stood still in the sky).

I don't know what he would have seen if he'd been somewhere else in the solar system. But from where he was, however it was done, the sun stood still upon Gibeon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This argument would only work if we changed "many" in the first premise to "all." The problem is, though, that there are many metaphorical passages in Scripture that do _not_ contain these exegetical clues, such as when Scripture says that God _has_ hands (not has something "like unto" hands). Of course, we know he doesn't because of clear teaching elsewhere, but the point is that these metaphorical statement have no exegetical clues within them, which means changing "many" to "all" in P1 would in order to make the argument deductive would make P1 false.


There is nothing in the passage or the Scriptures to indicate that the earth moves and the sun stands still: we get that from outside scientific considerations (Is that what you are doing? That is what most people do who state the sun only appears to move and that the Scriptures are speaking according to mere appearances). That is why contextual clues here are important and why one can understand things like "upon" or "in" to be figurative (and the sun "standing" to be figurative of it stopping), but we have nothing to clue is in to the idea that the sun only appears to move.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Would you say that phrases like the sun staying in its place "for about a day" and the sun returning "ten degrees" would be markers in the text pointing to a reality and not a mere appearance?


I would just say that it says the sun moves, so unless there are good contextual reasons for saying the sun only appears to move, we should believe that it moves.....even as we should believe that Jesus really did multiply the fish and loaves or that God caused a wind to blow that divided the Red sea and so on and that Jesus really did walk on water, unless we have contextual clues telling us that that is only what appeared to be the case. There is nothing contrary to common sense about or obvious contradiction to the sun being in motion, unlike with God having hands (He is a Spirit) or the sun "standing."


What is so difficult with stating that exegetically the sun moves? If we can all accept that point, I think one will find the sort of geocentrism that some here are promoting is really not that difficult to accept or different in technique than what we normally do with the interpretation of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 1, 2021)

Moderation (and genuine question)

Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints. 

I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Timmay (Jan 1, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Moderation (and genuine question)
> 
> Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints.
> 
> I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.



Go ahead. The simple answer I received is it’s a theological position. I was hoping for some more science based answers in the thread which I did receive a few of. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Timmay (Jan 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> I don't know that I'm qualified either but I think they do mention up front the non-rotating issue. I believe that was included in a subsequent iteration of the special relativity equations (initially Einstein was thinking only in linear frames of reference) so I don't think that's been a concern for quite some time. I could be wrong though.



Could you dumb this down for me? I’m learning as a go and I’m not really sure what you just said. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> That is why contextual clues here are important and why one can understand things like "upon" or "in" to be figurative (and the sun "standing" to be figurative of it stopping)...


The key word here is “can,” which has been our whole point.


Afterthought said:


> ...but we have nothing to clue is in to the idea that the sun only appears to move.


Begging the question. This whole discussion is about whether such clues are necessary to begin with.


Afterthought said:


> What is so difficult with stating that exegetically the sun moves?


As long as you say “may” before the assertion, then I’m fine with that.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Moderation (and genuine question)
> 
> Has everyone had their say and made their point? I'm worrying about how this thread has led to frustration among the saints.
> 
> I'm inclined to call it closed by tonight unless persuaded otherwise.


I'm not frustrated. However, I have said all I wish to say, except for something philosophical and deep that I might not have time to say.



Timmay said:


> Go ahead. The simple answer I received is it’s a theological position. I was hoping for some more science based answers in the thread which I did receive a few of.


There are two streams of scientific thought for this.

Relative geocentrism, which accepts general relativity and says earth is merely a preferred frame for one reason or another (but not because of physics).

Absolute geocenrism, which usually denies relativity, for some of the reasons you have seen in this thread and in other threads. Some people in this camp will acknowledge that the earth rotates, others say the earth neither rotates nor revolves. Greg Bouw (sp?) has the most complete physical model, though it is speculative. Oftentimes, one has to deny that the cosmic microwave background radiation is universal and arguments are made that it is local. Rotational effects on earth are usually described as a result of forces from the universe, though not in a Machian sense, since relativity has been denied; but this is an easier position to defend for those who acknowledge the earth rotates but stands still in one place.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2021)

Timmay said:


> Could you dumb this down for me? I’m learning as a go and I’m not really sure what you just said.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



As I understand, Einstein's famous thought experiments are something like a train is moving and you are on a train and drop a ball. If the train is moving at 45 miles per hour, then why does the ball act like you dropped it when standing still. In other words, it didn't move to the back of the train, which is what would have happened had you been outside and dropped the ball to the ground while hte train is moving.

The reason is that there are two inertial frames of reference: one is the observer on the ground as the train is passing by. The other is the guy in the train with the ball. In both cases the train is moving in a linear direction. 

Does that linear model apply in outer space? That's the question. Mind you, I completely reject geocentrism, so I am biased on this. Regardless, the sun isn't moving in a linear form, nor are planets moving in a linear direction.


----------



## Petra (Jan 1, 2021)

Sometime... we should look at a passage in the book of Joshua. It’s where Achan sinned and that is the reason given that Israel lost at Ai.

I see the editors interpreting Israel’s history through the lenses of a theological implication at hand. Not that they didn’t lose because of a single man sinning. But we moderns wouldn’t explain how the Brits lost at Dunkirk in WW2 because a single man sinned.
Maybe they were out numbered?
But I see the scripture through the lenses of the original audience first. I see the intent different for ancients.

it wasn’t until Herodotus that history was starting to become more of a science in its recording. But still...that was much, much later. And there was still subjectivity in the eyes of the victors writing it.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

This may help with the Sagnac effect: https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> What is so difficult with stating that exegetically the sun moves? If we can all accept that point, I think one will find the sort of geocentrism that some here are promoting is really not that difficult to accept or different in technique than what we normally do with the interpretation of Scripture.


So, I didn't even realize there are those who hold to an absolute geocentricity and those who hold to a relative geocentricity. I don't know how the latter would work! Any resources for that Raymond?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 1, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Has everyone had their say and made their point?


Pretty much. I just want to conclude with this...

I would love if at the end of this conversation we all could agree on these things:

1) Heliocentrists are not any less vigorously faithful to and adamant about the inerrancy of Scripture.
2) Heliocentrists do not embrace their position because they place science above or even on par with Scripture.
3) As at least one here has already admitted, there is no exegetical slam dunk on either side.
4) Geocentrists are not unsophisticated, and they may well be right in the end, but there cannot be anything close to certainty on this matter from an exegetical standpoint.

With those last words, I have a sermon to finish writing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So, I didn't even realize there are those who hold to an absolute geocentricity and those who hold to a relative geocentricity. I don't know how the latter would work! Any resources for that Raymond?


Relative geocentrism holds to general relativity, so any point in the universe could be made the center. This is not an exciting claim because you could make a fly the center, if you wanted. When you do this, you get terms in the metric equation that only show up when you are in a rotating frame of reference. These terms go away if you go in a non-rotating frame of reference (such as off of the earth). However, if one wanted, one could understand those terms as being weird gravitational forces that appear and disappear depending on your frame of reference; these are usually understood to be fictitious forces, even by general relativists; but I see nothing in the math that prevents us from taking them to be real. This point of view is WEIRD from a physics standpoint, but if there are reasons for preferring the earth frame, then that must be ultimately how it is, and the simpler frames are just simpler for calculation. What is the reason for preferring the earth frame? The basic answer is that this is how God has revealed the universe to us in the Scriptures, but it goes deeper than that, which I wish I would love to explore more at some point.

One should be careful to distinguish between interpretation and working out what statements mean according to scientific theories though. The relative geocentrist position allows us to say that the sun really moves....when we are in the reference frame of the earth, which allows consistency with the Scriptures' statement: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...nterpreting-special.78565/page-2#post-1012032

I think John Byl also holds to a relative geocentrism, though I don't recall for sure.

See Sean Caroll's admission (he wrote a famed General Relativity textbook): https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2005/10/03/does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun/

See the reference to Weinberg in this thread (actually, the whole discussion I had with MW is very revealing; but unless I misunderstood his appropriation of Mach at one point, it should be noted that Mach's principle has almost decisively been disproven): https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/another-article-against-geocentrism.90800/page-6

Also, see the article from CMI in the above thread, which makes the distinction

Plenty of googling can be found where relative geocentrism is allowed but absolute is denied by secular scientists.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> Relative geocentrism holds to general relativity, so any point in the universe could be made the center. This is not an exciting claim because you could make a fly the center, if you wanted. When you do this, you get terms in the metric equation that only show up when you are in a rotating frame of reference. These terms go away if you go in a non-rotating frame of reference (such as off of the earth). However, if one wanted, one could understand those terms as being weird gravitational forces that appear and disappear depending on your frame of reference; these are usually understood to be fictitious forces, even by general relativists; but I see nothing in the math that prevents us from taking them to be real. This point of view is WEIRD from a physics standpoint, but if there are reasons for preferring the earth frame, then that must be ultimately how it is, and the simpler frames are just simpler for calculation. What is the reason for preferring the earth frame? The basic answer is that this is how God has revealed the universe to us in the Scriptures, but it goes deeper than that, which I wish I would love to explore more at some point.
> 
> One should be careful to distinguish from interpretation and working out what statements mean according to scientific theories though. The relative geocentrist position allows us to say that the sun really moves....when we are in the reference frame of the earth, which allows consistency with the Scriptures' statement: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...nterpreting-special.78565/page-2#post-1012032
> 
> ...


Yes, I read that thread with MW earlier. I now realize you're right about John Byl. Thanks, more to study.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 1, 2021)

On that note, the thread is closed. Blessings to all.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

