Geocentricity Question

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

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.

 

[Eyedoc84]

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.

 

[Timmay]

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]

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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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?

 

[Eyedoc84]

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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.

 

[Taylor]

...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

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Absolutely.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

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.

 

[Taylor]

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]

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?

 

[Logan]

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]

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.

 

[Petra]

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]

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]

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]

Does the earth rotate on its axis or not?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

...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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.