Another Article Against Geocentrism

[Taylor]

Brother, how would we as Calvinists respond to this same statement made in the context of an anti-Calvinist response to our soteriological views? Would we let them "off the hook," as it were, versus pressing them to examine their unexamined assumptions? I think this is perhaps related to Rev. Winzer's questions of your position.

Simple. I would respond with the clarity of Scripture on the issue. On the doctrines of grace, unlike the spatial center on the solar system or universe, Scripture could not be more clear.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Taylor, what challenged me on this issue was the realization (which I think came by way of it being pointed out in earlier PB discussions on this topic) is that this matter rises to the level of doctrine. 1) The Bible makes the claim that the sun (and the moon) stood still in Joshua 10. It's not phenomenological language, because the inspired writer of Scripture in this historical account clearly states that what Joshua commanded happened- "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. 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. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man." 2) The denial that Scripture is veracious in Joshua 10 was, historically, the first salvo fired at the Bible that has so undermined the confidence of God's people in Scripture, and has also made the Bible seem antiquated both within and without the church. The widespread acceptance of the claim that we must have billions of years of age of the earth and evolution followed close behind.

Having the reliability of God's word restored to one, by understanding that Joshua 10 can continue to be accepted as true, is a great blessing.

 

[Taylor]

The Bible makes the claim that the sun (and the moon) stood still in Joshua 10.

That seems to be question begging. I realize Scripture says this, but my point is that it cannot be proven to be setting forth a geocentric model. I have full trust in the reliability of God's Word, by the way. I do not appreciate it being insinuated that I do not simply because I recognize the universal idiomatic language of sunrise and sunset.

 

[Afterthought]

Taylor,

You may already know this, but if you wanted to look into this matter, The Christian's Reasonable Service has a helpful systematic defense of geocentrism, along with an interesting exposition of Genesis 1. Matthew Poole also briefly discusses the matter in his commentary on Joshua. There are also a lot of past threads on the Puritanboard--some more lengthy than others--that contain helpful exegetical comments, including concerning relegating the text to phenomenological language.

From what I understand, the issue from an exegetical perspective is not so much heliocentric models (kinematic or dynamical), but either a reading back into the text what is not there (the text says the sun moves; it says nothing about the earth) or denying there is a sense in which the sun moves (since the text says the sun moves in the same manner the moon moves, not apparently moves). I am not sure whether geocentrists hold that extrapolating beyond that for the purposes of cosmology cannot really be done; there seem to be a variety of positions, as already noted in the thread, and I am not sure if--exegetically--it can be inferred that the earth must be the absolute center of the universe from the passages that indicate the sun's movement. If no extrapolation for cosmological purposes can be made, it would seem that either heliocentrism or geocentrism could be used to understand the event in Joshua...provided that the truth of the text is not denied or relegated to appearances only and provided that one is acknowledging to be making an "abstraction" from the text, rather than what the text says. (I would appreciate clarification from geocentrists on these matters)


Edit: Just saw Jeri's comment. Jeri actually didn't beg the question; she gave reasons why she did not believe the language was phenomenological.

 

[Taylor]

...this matter rises to the level of doctrine.

That is utterly ridiculous. This is not the case until it can be proven beyond most doubt that 1) Scripture even addresses the issue and 2) Scripture speaks clearly and definitively in favor of one position completely over another.

 

[Taylor]

Just saw Jeri's comment. Jeri actually didn't beg the question; she gave reasons why she did not believe the language was phenomenological.

She actually did, in a sense. She did not at all prove it is not phenomenological language. She merely asserted that it isn't and then quoted the cited passage. My point is that you can't prove your point by quoting the disputed passage. That is, to me, a form of question begging.

Also, I am familiar with à Brakel's position. In my opinion, his dogmatism over the issue is likewise in error. This is a helpful article by R. Scott Clark on the issue.

I would like to point out for the final time that my point is not argue for or against any model, but to say that to argue it from Scripture is not as clear cut as we would like it to be, and thus it is shaky at best to argue for either model from Scripture.

 

[Justified]

I would respond with the clarity of Scripture on the issue.

Also, I am fairly certain (I do not know why you accuse me of rising to the level of dogmatism) that Genesis 1 is a difficult passage, otherwise its proper interpretation would not be disputed.

If being a "highly disputed" passage is a criterion of being unclear, then I fear that the gospel is unclear, the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the resurrection of the body, etc. There are plenty of scholars-- even ostensibly Christian scholars-- who disagree on all these points.

 

[Afterthought]

She actually did, in a sense. She did not at all prove it is not phenomenological language. She merely asserted that it isn't and then quoted the cited passage. My point is that you can't prove your point by quoting the disputed passage. That is, to me, a form of question begging.

Perhaps I am too used to these arguments so that I understand the shorthand arguments and then read in the longer ones, but she said: "because the inspired writer of Scripture in this historical account clearly states that what Joshua commanded happened." That is an interpretive point. Maybe it doesn't constitute "proof," since some premises are missing, but if a reason beside the question is given, the question is not begged. Anyway, it seems silly to me to argue "she said/she didn't say," so I'll leave it there; at the very least, further argumentation on her end is needed since this argument did not grab you.

Thanks for the R Scott Clark reference. I have read it before.

I'm not sure if your bolded comment is directed to my post. If it is, I understood your position fine. I was only commenting on the exegetical issues regarding arguing for or against geocentrism, since those are different positions than your own.

 

[Taylor]

If being a "highly disputed" passage is a criterion of being unclear, then I fear that the gospel is unclear, the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the resurrection of the body, etc. There are plenty of scholars-- even ostensibly Christian scholars-- who disagree on all these points.

That's not what I said. There are plenty of disputed passages that are quite clear. I never said that mere dispute is a criterion for being unclear. Rather, I am saying that Genesis 1, in terms of celestial mechanics, is unclear (simply because the passages doesn't seemed to be concerned with being a lecture on science), which in this case leads to dispute not between unbelievers and believers, and not even just between conservatives and liberals, but (as is seen on this board) between thoroughly Reformed, orthodox believers and scholars. Regardless, comparing Scripture's teaching (assuming there is such; and it is an assumption) concerning the particular arrangement of the heavenly bodies and their particular motions and the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone (about which Paul could not be clearer) is beyond apples and oranges.

It seems I may have upset some people here, and I'm not even trying to argue for one position or the other! I am simply arguing that either position can be defended from Scripture, depending on one's presuppositions regarding regarding science and language, and now I am being implicitly suspected of denying by my methodology clear doctrines such as justification by faith alone. I had no idea arguing for balance and care when handling the Word of God—especially in matters about which Scripture's statements are few and up for various viable interpretations—was such a crime.

 

[Edward]

If being a "highly disputed" passage is a criterion of being unclear, then I fear that the gospel is unclear, the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the resurrection of the body, etc. There are plenty of scholars-- even ostensibly Christian scholars-- who disagree on all these points.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all"

 

[Toasty]

Just out of curiosity, has any satellite been outside of our solar system and taken a video recording of our solar system?

 

[Justified]

If being a "highly disputed" passage is a criterion of being unclear, then I fear that the gospel is unclear, the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the resurrection of the body, etc. There are plenty of scholars-- even ostensibly Christian scholars-- who disagree on all these points.

That's not what I said. There are plenty of disputed passages that are quite clear. I never said that mere dispute is a criterion for being unclear. Rather, I am saying that Genesis 1, in terms of celestial mechanics, is unclear (simply because the passages doesn't seemed to be concerned with being a lecture on science), which in this case leads to dispute not between unbelievers and believers, and not even just between conservatives and liberals, but (as is seen on this board) between thoroughly Reformed, orthodox believers and scholars. Regardless, comparing Scripture's teaching (assuming there is such; and it is an assumption) concerning the particular arrangement of the heavenly bodies and their particular motions and the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone (about which Paul could not be clearer) is beyond apples and oranges.

It seems I may have upset some people here, and I'm not even trying to argue for one position or the other! I am simply arguing that either position can be defended from Scripture, depending on one's presuppositions regarding regarding science and language, and now I am being implicitly suspected of denying by my methodology clear doctrines such as justification by faith alone. I had no idea arguing for balance and care when handling the Word of God—especially in matters about which Scripture's statements are few and up for various viable interpretations—was such a crime.

Don't worry. You haven't upset me in the slightest. I myself do not have an opinion on the matter, but for a moment it seemed that you were arguing that if something were disputed, it was unclear. Since you have cleared that up, you'll not hear from me.

 

[Justified]

If being a "highly disputed" passage is a criterion of being unclear, then I fear that the gospel is unclear, the doctrines of grace, justification by faith alone, the resurrection of the body, etc. There are plenty of scholars-- even ostensibly Christian scholars-- who disagree on all these points.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all"

I certainly agree with that. Almost all of the above doctrines I believe are clear because they are the central message of salvation in Christ, which our Lord has not made obscure or difficult to understand.

 

[Afterthought]

Just out of curiosity, has any satellite been outside of our solar system and taken a video recording of our solar system?

Voyager 1 has left the solar system. There is no video, but there is the Family Portrait.

 

[Douglas P.]

Just out of curiosity, has any satellite been outside of our solar system and taken a video recording of our solar system?

Although no satellite has ever exited the solar system to send back a video, all spacecraft navigation relies, in part, on measuring the Doppler shift of that satellite or spacecraft relative to earth. Since Earth is in motion, a spacecraft such as Voyager or Cassini constantly measures the velocity of Earth. Other spacecraft such as WMAP have also measured the velocity of Earth to an extremely precise value.

There's more to be said on this subject, which if i get some more time i will later, but in the meantime, here is an article on Spacecraft Navigation from the JPL. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/bsf13-1.php

 

[Jeri Tanner]

She actually did, in a sense. She did not at all prove it is not phenomenological language. She merely asserted that it isn't and then quoted the cited passage. My point is that you can't prove your point by quoting the disputed passage. That is, to me, a form of question begging.

Perhaps I am too used to these arguments so that I understand the shorthand arguments and then read in the longer ones, but she said: "because the inspired writer of Scripture in this historical account clearly states that what Joshua commanded happened." That is an interpretive point. Maybe it doesn't constitute "proof," since some premises are missing, but if a reason beside the question is given, the question is not begged. Anyway, it seems silly to me to argue "she said/she didn't say," so I'll leave it there; at the very least, further argumentation on her end is needed since this argument did not grab you.

Thanks for the R Scott Clark reference. I have read it before.

I'm not sure if your bolded comment is directed to my post. If it is, I understood your position fine. I was only commenting on the exegetical issues regarding arguing for or against geocentrism, since those are different positions than your own.

I meant that normally, when reading the historical narratives, we take "at face value" what is reported by the "narrator" as having happened. But in this passage, where the narrator reports that the sun did indeed stop moving, and stood still, most want to say that it can't be taken at face value because we all know the sun doesn't move in that way. Since no one can observe what is really happening with the movements of the earth, the sun, etc, I think it best to refrain from scientific claims, but I do believe that however the motions of the heavenly bodies are occurring, the account in Joshua 10 can and should be taken at face value- the sun was moving, it stopped moving at Joshua's command, and began moving again afterward. That's all I'm saying.

 

[MW]

It seems I may have upset some people here, and I'm not even trying to argue for one position or the other! I am simply arguing that either position can be defended from Scripture, depending on one's presuppositions regarding regarding science and language, and now I am being implicitly suspected of denying by my methodology clear doctrines such as justification by faith alone.

Taylor, you are back to saying you have no position, though in fact you clearly state a position when you claim either position can be defended from Scripture. You must have come to some fairly solid exegetical and dogmatic conclusions in order to have arrived at this position. I think your conclusions require examination in order to test the credibility of them, because neither position holds the position that you do. In order to examine your conclusions we will need for you to plainly state the reasons for your position and be open to having them tested.

I don't see where anybody implicitly suspected your doctrine of justification by faith. It was simply observed as an analogy that this and other doctrines are disputed among Christians, and therefore the bare fact that two positions argue from the same Scriptures is not a solid reason for thinking that the Scriptures themselves are unclear.

 

[MW]

Regarding the way doctrines are affected by this issue, I refer back to the OP and my original response. It is quite clear that scientific conclusions have metaphysical components and one's view of ultimate reality will affect the way one understands biblical doctrines.

 

[lynnie]

Regarding satellites and spacecraft, in the geocentric model it fits perfectly well because of space rotating around the earth. There are all kinds of scientific discourses out there by geocentrists on this. You can't use that to prove either the geo or helio position.

By the way, in case anybody does not know, in the accepted geocentric model which works perfectly ( ie retrograde motion, predicting eclipses, etc), the other planets orbit the sun, which rotates around the earth daily. The other planets do not have rings around the earth, but around the sun. Its rather fascinating to read the literature and the old science experiments.

MW made a very good point about accepting modern thinking. Now we don't live in a universe, we live in one universe among many of them, the multiverse, supposedly proved by quantum mechanics. Then there is the model where everything in the sky is on the surface of an expanding balloon. Honestly, when I watched the DVD by Robert Sungenis I realized how much simpler it is to just believe in a firmament and geocentricity, and classical physics instead of relativity. When you to try and figure out how to explain the observed phenomena without them it just gets more bizarre all the time. People think modern astronomy "works" with the observations. It does not.

 

[Afterthought]

Regarding the way doctrines are affected by this issue, I refer back to the OP and my original response. It is quite clear that scientific conclusions have metaphysical components and one's view of ultimate reality will affect the way one understands biblical doctrines.

Would you say my understanding below is correct? If not, how are various things shown, e.g., that the earth is at the center of the universe, based on the sun's motion?

From what I understand, the issue from an exegetical perspective is not so much heliocentric models (kinematic or dynamical), but either a reading back into the text what is not there (the text says the sun moves; it says nothing about the earth) or denying there is a sense in which the sun moves (since the text says the sun moves in the same manner the moon moves, not apparently moves). I am not sure whether geocentrists hold that extrapolating beyond that for the purposes of cosmology cannot really be done; there seem to be a variety of positions, as already noted in the thread, and I am not sure if--exegetically--it can be inferred that the earth must be the absolute center of the universe from the passages that indicate the sun's movement. If no extrapolation for cosmological purposes can be made, it would seem that either heliocentrism or geocentrism could be used to understand the event in Joshua...provided that the truth of the text is not denied or relegated to appearances only and provided that one is acknowledging to be making an "abstraction" from the text, rather than what the text says. (I would appreciate clarification from geocentrists on these matters)

Now we don't live in a universe, we live in one universe among many of them, the multiverse, supposedly proved by quantum mechanics. Then there is the model where everything in the sky is on the surface of an expanding balloon.

Most agree that there is no empirical evidence of a multiverse. It is admitted by most of them that it is a speculation (motivated in part by quantum mechanics and string theory) with the intent of explaining "fine tuning." As for the latter, that is a misrepresentation of the theory of the expanding universe. Regardless of either, there is strong observational evidence that the earth is in a non-inertial reference frame and that "fictitious" forces that in all other known cases are the result of rotating objects appear in the earth's frame. From the perspective of modern science, these need to be explained in a universal, mathematical way for a dynamical geocentric model to take off. The only way I could see that happening is if there was some theory that had effects on earth only and was imperceptible to observation, so as to violate common sense on earth only and nowhere else. But if imperceptible, it is not empirical; so it would need to leave some other effects that we could detect.

Honestly, when I watched the DVD by Robert Sungenis I realized how much simpler it is to just believe in a firmament and geocentricity, and classical physics instead of relativity.

None have found a way to believe in such without creating enormous mathematical headaches and complicated explaining away of experimental data. The firmament theory is also speculation still: including from an exegetical perspective, I think. I also do not recall any of them having gotten a universal dynamics that puts all the mathematical pieces together (they may have; it has been a while; I remember the "firmament" "dynamics," but there were no real equations used; neither were equations used to show how a rotating space produces the same effects as something rotating in space). The dynamics of classical physics may be more intuitive, but that is it, so far as this issue is concerned. From CMI's perspective, the issue again is dynamics.

By the way, in case anybody does not know, in the accepted geocentric model which works perfectly ( ie retrograde motion, predicting eclipses, etc), the other planets orbit the sun, which rotates around the earth daily.

The CMI article claims this Neo-Tychonian model, although theoretically dynamical, reduces to kinematics, If I recall correctly.

People think modern astronomy "works" with the observations. It does not.

This is partially true. It works in the solar system very well. And it seems to work elsewhere pretty well. But there are some discrepancies outside the solar system, although none are sure how to fix all of them or the source of the discrepancies (some invoke "dark matter" quite confidently while leaving "dark energy" up for grabs).

 

[MW]

Would you say my understanding below is correct? If not, how are various things shown, e.g., that the earth is at the center of the universe, based on the sun's motion?

I am not a scientist, so I can't offer comment on different theories. I do know that science requires certain metaphysical assumptions, and that these assumptions cannot be proven one way or the other. I also know that "naturalistic" science works on the basis of some precarious rules so far as matter and time are concerned. I remain a sceptic so far as naturalistic science is concerned, especially as it aims to give an ultimate explanation of life.

I would say that biblical cosmology matters. It's not poetic or mythic. It's a real world. Everything the Bible teaches is suspended on that real world and has ethical implications for our life in the real world in the light of judgment to come. Heaven and earth are the Bible's reality, and must therefore be the reality we accept in order to understand what the Bible is teaching. If we make void the cosmology of the Bible its truths become esoteric, psychic, idealist, or gnostic, because they cease to have real meaning for space and time as we know it.

I think if one accepts Copernicus he is bound to the scientific principle of mediocrity. An older theologian, John Edwards, recognised that point; and all the naturalistic theoretical scientists are really functioning on that principle. If the mediocrity principle were accepted we would have to regard the Bible as of little worth. I am not willing to diminish the authority of the Bible in order to accommodate a spurious metaphysic which has no certain basis and offers no certain results.

 

[Afterthought]

I think if one accepts Copernicus he is bound to the scientific principle of mediocrity. An older theologian, John Edwards, recognised that point; and all the naturalistic theoretical scientists are really functioning on that principle. If the mediocrity principle were accepted we would have to regard the Bible as of little worth. I am not willing to diminish the authority of the Bible in order to accommodate a spurious metaphysic which has no certain basis and offers no certain results.

While it is certainly true that some take the "lesson" of Copernicus to be the "principle of mediocrity," I think the one of the big concerns is whether the laws of physics stay the same no matter where you are in the universe. If one rejects this, one will only be able to metaphysically justify having a bunch of disjoint and chaotic mathematical equations with no explanation behind them (i.e., the universal information that binds them together is lost), which also leads to being unable to discover new phenomena. Perhaps this too is an unprovable metaphysical assumption, but wouldn't common sense say if we see something universal behind particulars, the universal must have reality (with some probability)? Isn't this just the way human observation works? And this metaphysical assumption has allowed the categorizing and explanation of much observable phenomena by just a few universal equations.

Part of the metaphysical resistance to the dynamics of the geocentrist models is that they "work" only when one is on the earth; that they need to pretend the modern model is correct in order to make predictions about phenomena without adding things to their theory ad hoc; that they require there to be things that are exceptional about the earth's physics when compared to all other heavenly and earthly bodies; and that it violates inferences from common sense observations: there are universal features associated with rotating bodies on earth, and we see those same features occurring to the earth (i.e., the earth looks like it is rotating). There are also universal features associated with two bodies on earth spinning around each other that allow us to mathematically quantify whether our eyes will see one body orbiting the other or whether we cannot tell which orbits which, and these features say that if we somehow looked at the earth and sun from a distance with our own eyes, we would see the earth moving around the sun.

(There is also the metaphysical issue in geocentrist models of things like earthquakes on the earth forcing the entire universe--however far away--to adjust almost instantaneously. But this is not related to the metaphysical principle that we are discussing.)

I would say that biblical cosmology matters. It's not poetic or mythic. It's a real world. Everything the Bible teaches is suspended on that real world and has ethical implications for our life in the real world in the light of judgment to come. Heaven and earth are the Bible's reality, and must therefore be the reality we accept in order to understand what the Bible is teaching. If we make void the cosmology of the Bible its truths become esoteric, psychic, idealist, or gnostic, because they cease to have real meaning for space and time as we know it.

I agree. I'm just uncertain how much biblical exegesis commits one to in the realm of cosmology. I can agree the Bible teaches the sun moves. But is anything else required? And is there a problem with biblical cosmology if one takes the modern relativist physics as metaphysically correct (with some probability), if the relativist physics acknowledges that on the earth, the sun moves?

I also know that "naturalistic" science works on the basis of some precarious rules so far as matter and time are concerned. I remain a sceptic so far as naturalistic science is concerned, especially as it aims to give an ultimate explanation of life.

What rules do you mean? Do you have some works/papers in mind that discuss them?

 

[MW]

but wouldn't common sense say if we see something universal behind particulars, the universal must have reality (with some probability)?

"Common sense" is geocentric. Go into outer space and your common sense is not going to work for you. Jumping in the air will fling you on a path; you will not drop back down.

these features say that if we looked at the earth and sun from a distance, we would see the earth moving around the sun.

What distance? According to physics the universe is expanding and time is in flux. How long is a piece of string? Any finding could only be relative.

And is there a problem with biblical cosmology if one takes the modern relativist physics as metaphysically correct (with some probability), if the relativist physics acknowledges that on the earth, the sun moves?

According to modern relativist physics matter is eternal and infinite. According to the Bible there is a beginning of things and these are quantifiable. According to the relativist theory there might be multiple realities. According to the Bible there can only be one, of which there can only be one God. Although on this last point there are those who point to the improbability of multiple realities it is still regarded as a theoretical possibility.

What rules do you mean?

Here is Neil deGrasse Tyson's rule number one:

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

 

[Taylor]

Taylor, you are back to saying you have no position, though in fact you clearly state a position when you claim either position can be defended from Scripture.

Where did I say I have no position? I thought I stated my position regarding this dispute quite clearly—multiple times, in fact.

 

[Taylor]

"Common sense" is geocentric.

Common sense told me air was invisible until the atom was presented to me.

 

[MW]

Where did I say I have no position? I thought I stated my position regarding this dispute quite clearly—multiple times, in fact.

And yet you object to anyone testing the reasons for your position on the basis that you are not arguing for one position or the other. If you acknowledge you hold a position then you are bound to the same standards of examination as the other positions.

 

[MW]

"Common sense" is geocentric.

Common sense told me air was invisible until the atom was presented to me.

And when the medium of presentation was taken away did the air become visible to you? could you now miraculously see atoms everywhere? I will take a guess and say that common sense told you afterwards precisely what it told you before.

 

[Taylor]

And when the medium of presentation was taken away did the air become visible to you? could you now miraculously see atoms everywhere? I will take a guess and say that common sense told you afterwards precisely what it told you before.

Of course not. Surely you are not about argue that because I needed to aid my vision with a microscope the fact that the air is indeed visible is no less true. If so, you are truly grasping at straws.

No, my previous common sense, like all sense, became informed by evidence and conformed to it.

 

[MW]

No, my previous common sense, like all sense, became informed by evidence and conformed to it.

If the presentation of the atom made no difference to your inability to see the air, your common sense remained the same sense which is experienced by all men in common.

 

[Taylor]

If the presentation of the atom made no difference to your inability to see the air, your common sense remained the same sense which is experienced by all men in common.

Nonsense. Grasping at straws is what you're doing now. It totally made a difference. The fact that I need an external apparatus to see the air in no way means that I cannot see it. I now have the ability, just not with the naked eye. It doesn't make air any less visible.

The point: Air was proven to be visible. And get this: contrary to Jesus' words in John 3 (only if taken literalistically), we even can see where the wind is coming from and where it is going thanks to meteorological equipment!