Which is central, the Sun or the Earth?

[lynnie]

skyler....I really mean it when I say that I appreciate you trying to understand where I am coming from. Its like a credo-paedo debate where somebody actually tries to understand the other side. I mean, my poor PCA pastor has had people in his life tell him he must not have ever read the bible if he believes in infant baptism. God will use you greatly in ministry if you try and be the kind of person who attempts to understand the other side. I've gotten tired of the " flat earth" cracks over the years. So thank you.

you said: Basically, they were testing to see if the Earth's velocity would make a difference in the speed of light--and it didn't, confirming Einstein's hypothesis.

Actually, chronologically it is the other way around. In 1887 M/M showed that there was no velocity of the earth. In 1905 Einstein published his theory. So yes indeed, the MM experiment confirms Einsteins hypothesis IF and only if you are heliocentric and need a way to explain why the earth appears to not have a velocity. If you are geo, you don't need the theory of relativity.

Like I said, both models work. The real scientific ( not scripture) debate in my opinion must come down to relativity- proven or debunked. You must accept that visible light behaves differently than any other measured wave velocity of the electromagnetic spectrum.

You have to accept that as the earth revolves around the Sun at a speed of about thirty kilometers per second, if we repeat the experiment six months later, we should expect to find a difference of sixty kilometers per second, as the Earth moves away from the particular star's light. And it does not. So either Einsten is right and visible light behaves differently than radar, x-rays, radio waves, microwaves, etc, or, the earth stands still.

By the way geocentrists do believe in the ether. They call it the firmament. All the heavenly bodies exist in something invisible but "firm." I am not sure if the dark matter theories are the same thing. Guess I need to go read up the geocentric sites one of these days. Been a while.

 

[Archlute]

I must say that unbelievers who read this thread are going to be laughing that we even debate this stuff.

Without weighing in either way on this discussion, I would like to say that unbelievers would laugh about a lot of things here if they were to read them.

Which unbeliever do you know who would accept that he has been blinded, bound, and is part of the kingdom of darkness? A domain whose head is known as the Prince of the Power of the Air (Col. 1:13; Eph. 2:2)? Or that we believe in the Holy Spirit, or even in angels and demons (which is sooooooo, pre-enlightenment!)?

If it is a biblically oriented discussion, regardless of the interpretive differences shown, we should not be too embarrassed or intimidated to discuss it. This is also why passages such as 1 Tim. 2:12, Titus 2:3-5, and 1 Pet. 3:7 get so little air time from either pulpit or lectern in our churches.

 

[Grillsy]

The "sun standing still" is the natural, intuitive observation, which is immediately understandable regardless of your cosmology.

Again, you leave out of view the fact that Joshua told the sun to stand still, which was part and parcel of the miracle. It is not a matter of mere observation; his command was instrumental to the miracle.

Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds which it is not. Are you now going to argue that it is the smallest seed? Surely there is another way to understand this, just as there could be another to understand the sun standing still.

 

[MW]

Matthew, could you please demonstrate exegetically how this verse is incompatible with a heliocentric view of the galaxy?

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
(Jos 10:13)

Hello Vaughan, nice to see you again.

I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another. As noted, scientists use both views for different purposes. My only concern is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it.

I think I have already expressed my exegetical concerns by noting the miracle in the context of verse 12, where Joshua's command is instrumental to the event. While it is conceivable that the Bible might use phenomenological language to refer to a miracle, the fact is that in this case it is impossible to construe Joshua's command in a figurative manner. On that basis I conclude that the narrative intends to teach the standing still as an an historical event and that the sun was the literal body which stood still.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Matthew, could you please demonstrate exegetically how this verse is incompatible with a heliocentric view of the galaxy?

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
(Jos 10:13)

Hello Vaughan, nice to see you again.

I am averse to making heliocentric and geocentric views exclusive of one another. As noted, scientists use both views for different purposes. My only concern is to see the Bible interpreted in its own right, and not have spurious astronomical theories thrust upon it.

I think I have already expressed my exegetical concerns by noting the miracle in the context of verse 12, where Joshua's command is instrumental to the event. While it is conceivable that the Bible might use phenomenological language to refer to a miracle, the fact is that in this case it is impossible to construe Joshua's command in a figurative manner. On that basis I conclude that the narrative intends to teach the standing still as an an historical event and that the sun was the literal body which stood still.

Good to be back. Things have been a little hectic down here in Sydney-land.

You say that it is impossible to interpret Joshua's command in a figurative manner, but isn't the command itself construed in a figurative way?

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
(Jos 10:12)

We can't force the text to say anything that it doesn't, but wouldn't your understanding of the command mean that the sun, technically, should have stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon have stood still in the Valley of Ajalon?

 

[MW]

Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds which it is not. Are you now going to argue that it is the smallest seed? Surely there is another way to understand this, just as there could be another to understand the sun standing still.

Parabolic teaching utilises popular and proverbial figures of speech which do not require empirical accuracy. This is altogether different from an historical narrative which purports to be relating an event and particularly a miraculous event.

 

[MW]

We can't force the text to say anything that it doesn't, but wouldn't your understanding of the command mean that the sun, technically, should have stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon have stood still in the Valley of Ajalon?

Good observation! Prepositions are quite expandable, especially in concrete Hebrew language, and so must be understood according to their context. The event itself, however, still requires a literal understanding regardless of the exact location where Joshua was situated.

 

[Grillsy]

Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds which it is not. Are you now going to argue that it is the smallest seed? Surely there is another way to understand this, just as there could be another to understand the sun standing still.

Parabolic teaching utilises popular and proverbial figures of speech which do not require empirical accuracy. This is altogether different from an historical narrative which purports to be relating an event and particularly a miraculous event.

Indeed. But doesn't historical writing have to make sense to the original audience as well? Could this not have been an instance of what appeared to have happened as would have been understood by those at the time.

 

[MW]

Indeed. But doesn't historical writing have to make sense to the original audience as well? Could this not have been an instance of what appeared to have happened as would have been understood by those at the time.

As explained earlier, this requires accommodation to mistaken conceptions, which is liberal accommodation. Think of the consequences if this possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

We can't force the text to say anything that it doesn't, but wouldn't your understanding of the command mean that the sun, technically, should have stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon have stood still in the Valley of Ajalon?

Good observation! Prepositions are quite expandable, especially in concrete Hebrew language, and so must be understood according to their context. The event itself, however, still requires a literal understanding regardless of the exact location where Joshua was situated.

Ugh... don't remind me of Hebrew. I've got an exam coming up, and never want to read backwards again. Can't we just stick with the LXX?

I think this is where I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm happy to accept the event as literal - the sun stood still in the heavens. This is what is written, and I believe it literally. However, the statement says nothing about the means. Could one believe that God listened to Joshua and caused the entire galaxy to stand still in the heavens? I certainly believe that.

 

[MW]

Ugh... don't remind me of Hebrew. I've got an exam coming up, and never want to read backwards again. Can't we just stick with the LXX?

They have to be cruel to be kind. You will thank them later. Maybe.

Could one believe that God listened to Joshua and caused the entire galaxy to stand still in the heavens? I certainly believe that.

This is where I must voice my concern that the Bible be interpreted in its own right. Where are the other "possibilities" coming from? Not from the text. Then they should have no bearing on the interpretation of the text.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Indeed. But doesn't historical writing have to make sense to the original audience as well? Could this not have been an instance of what appeared to have happened as would have been understood by those at the time.

As explained earlier, this requires accommodation to mistaken conceptions, which is liberal accommodation. Think of the consequences if this possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous.

This is an interesting argument, and maybe it fits in another thread?

I've never studied this in detail, but would there be a problem with assuming a difference between conceptions - take the wedding at Cana for instance. There is a difference between the Cosmological conceptions of the people of the Old Testament and the conceptions which would lead one to believe that "wine is wine and will always be wine", isn't there?

 

[Vytautas]

As explained earlier, this requires accommodation to mistaken conceptions, which is liberal accommodation. Think of the consequences if this possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous.

A mistaken conception as accommodation would be Jesus walking on the water when in reality he was just walking on the rocks just below the water. But given that the sun and moon stood still in relation to the people that saw it, either model can accept that, since staying and going are relative to a vantage point and the thing moving. You seem to be saying that the sun stood still in relation to absolute space, rather than the people that saw the event.

 

[Grillsy]

As explained earlier, this requires accommodation to mistaken conceptions, which is liberal accommodation. Think of the consequences if this possibility was actually entertained. The liberals would have all the justification they need for explaining away the miraculous in the Bible since everyone to whom the Bible was written thought in terms of the miraculous.

A mistaken conception as accommodation would be Jesus walking on the water when in reality he was just walking on the rocks just below the water. But given that the sun and moon stood still in relation to the people that saw it, either model can accept that, since staying and going are relative to a vantage point and the thing moving. You seem to be saying that the sun stood still in relation to absolute space, rather than the people that saw the event.

That is what I was trying to say. That is what he was responding to in your quoted passage. You said it much better than myself, I salute you.

 

[MW]

You seem to be saying that the sun stood still in relation to absolute space, rather than the people that saw the event.

Yes, I am saying the miracle was an actual event rather than something the people "apparently" witnessed.

 

[lynnie]

If both models work perfectly fine, why do some people have such a problem with believing the biblical one?

The answer is that Einstein has become canon, sorry to say.

 

[OPC'n]

But the Bible doesn't explicitly provide a geocentric model; it's implicitly derived from linguistic expressions. Like I've said before, the Bible isn't a science textbook, intended to provide us with a model of the universe. We shouldn't treat it as such.

Fascinating how quickly scientific questions can turn people into Bible experts. The miracle in Joshua is not a linguistic expression. The sun stood still. It is history!

The sun stood still bc the earth stood still simple as that. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

 

[Vytautas]

You seem to be saying that the sun stood still in relation to absolute space, rather than the people that saw the event.

Yes, I am saying the miracle was an actual event rather than something the people "apparently" witnessed.

When I say that the people that saw the event, I mean that their seeing is the vantage point while the sun is the thing standing still, but you are saying that the vantage point is space itself. It seems that the text uses the people on the earth as the vantage point of the event, rather than absolute space. I am disagreeing over the vantage point and not over the fact that the event happened.

 

[MW]

The sun stood still bc the earth stood still simple as that. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

And whence in the Bible have you derived this belief?

 

[MW]

I am disagreeing over the vantage point and not over the fact that the event happened.

No, you are disagreeing with what stood still. The Bible says what stood still, and you do not accept it.

 

[MW]

I've never studied this in detail, but would there be a problem with assuming a difference between conceptions - take the wedding at Cana for instance. There is a difference between the Cosmological conceptions of the people of the Old Testament and the conceptions which would lead one to believe that "wine is wine and will always be wine", isn't there?

Sorry, Vaughan, I'm struggling to understand the question. Are you asking if the conceptions of the people are more instrumental in the OT than in Cana, or something else?

 

[Vytautas]

I am disagreeing over the vantage point and not over the fact that the event happened.

No, you are disagreeing with what stood still. The Bible says what stood still, and you do not accept it.

Staying still is a relation. If a man is driving with me in my car, and I look at him, to me that man is staying still. He is not moving 45 mph when I look at him, but from the vantage point of a man outside of the car he is. I accept that the sun and moon stood still in realation to the people on earth.

 

[au5t1n]

Geocentrists,

I am an engineering student and a burgeoning physicist, and I have a few questions for clarification, if you please:

1. Am I correct in understanding that in the geocentric model, the sun revolves around the earth, while the other planets and such revolve around the sun? Please correct this impression if it is wrong.

2. What is the physical explanation, in the geocentric model, for a body of greater mass (the sun) revolving around a body of lesser mass (the earth), when no other bodies I am aware of behave like this, including the other heavenly bodies besides the earth in the geocentric model?

 

[MW]

I accept that the sun and moon stood still in realation to the people on earth.

Just as the liberal accepts that Jesus walked on water in relation to the people. There is no actual miracle here.

 

[toddpedlar]

I can allow that science might work with a variety of models and it would be unscientific to be dogmatic on a point for which there can only be limited evidence and experimentation. OTOH, the Bible provides one, and only one model, and that is the geocentric model, and the Bible is true in all it says. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God."

With all due respect, Matthew (and we disagree on so little) this is a problematic assumption. The Bible also presents a flat Earth with four corners, but I imagine that you do not believe that the world is that way.

 

[OPC'n]

The sun stood still bc the earth stood still simple as that. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth.

And whence in the Bible have you derived this belief?

Did God command the sun and moon to stand still or did Joshua? Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." This is a prayer from Joshua to God. Joshua wanted time to stand still. Joshua is just a man and didn't know how the earth rotated around the earth. As far as he could tell it was the sun and moon moving not the earth. So when he prayed to God for "time to stand still" he asked according to his limited knowledge. God wasn't going to say, "Ok, Joshua, here's a science lesson for you....." God just answered his prayer by stopping the earth from rotating for awhile. If God had commanded the sun and moon to stand still, you might have a leg on which to stand. Remember not everything men say in the Bible is a direct word from God. They spoke according to their own knowledge many times.

 

[Vytautas]

I accept that the sun and moon stood still in realation to the people on earth.

Just as the liberal accepts that Jesus walked on water in relation to the people. There is no actual miracle here.

Yes, but they would say that walking on water is a misconception, since he walked on ice or rocks. The moon and sun staying still in relation to the the people on earth would be true for both positions. I do not see the parallel, since walking on ice or rocks is a natural explaination of events, while the sun staying still is a miracle no mater how it happened.

 

[toddpedlar]

Geocentrists,

I am an engineering student and a burgeoning physicist, and I have a few questions for clarification, if you please:

1. Am I correct in understanding that in the geocentric model, the sun revolves around the earth, while the other planets and such revolve around the sun? Please correct this impression if it is wrong.

Yes, that is the modern geocentric view. All the stars are also said to be embedded in a 'plenum' or crystal-like sphere that rotates around the Earth also with a 24 hour period.

2. What is the physical explanation, in the geocentric model, for a body of greater mass (the sun) revolving around a body of lesser mass (the earth), when no other bodies I am aware of behave like this, including the other heavenly bodies besides the earth in the geocentric model?

I'd like to see someone actually attempt a "physical" model that tries to explain this, and not one that ultimately rests on the assertion that the Sun (and everything else) revolves around the Earth.

 

[MW]

With all due respect, Matthew (and we disagree on so little) this is a problematic assumption. The Bible also presents a flat Earth with four corners, but I imagine that you do not believe that the world is that way.

No, it doesn't. As noted, this is a post-Darwinan polemic aimed at manipulating its opponents into accepting "scientific" advance.

 

[Philip]

I accept that the sun and moon stood still in realation to the people on earth.

Just as the liberal accepts that Jesus walked on water in relation to the people. There is no actual miracle here.

The earth and moon standing still is just as much of a miracle as the sun and moon standing still.