Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Natural Revelation and God's Creation' started by Ray, Feb 20, 2018.
Can you explain what geocentrism is please? I’ve heard the term but never researched it.
The earth is at the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbit it.
You may be convinced of this as "the biblical model," but I'm not convinced there is any such thing, other than in a spiritual sense.
It is sufficient, so far as I'm concerned, to say that natural things are described in Scripture from an "observer's standpoint," within his (ancient) technological limits. And subject to improvement, which is the stance of a genuinely humble person.
The problems arise when modern people of lesser imagination and humility say, "the Bible's observers were wrong about this or that." I'd much rather say, "They were right so far as they grasped this or that."
Isn't the observer the writer? How is it not the Biblical model when the writer is the one who wrote that passage? Not only that, but choosing an arbitrary point in the universe as the center (e.g. the sun) has theological implications, doesn't it?
As far as technological limits, what are they? Heliocentrism is just another model. It's no more true than geocentrism from a technological point of view.
How many men have been able to stand on the surface of the sun?
I guess my best laid plans to keep the topic distinct from geocentricism were doomed.
The main point I want to make is that holding to a flat earth requires one to ignore his God-given senses. In other words, you can take a little time to look at God's earth with some simple tools to verify it is a sphere. We have a sailor verifying his personal observations. I can attest that when I was a kid I attached a string with a weight to a protractor center, put that on a stick, and measured the angle to Polaris at my home in Montana. Later, when we visited my aunt in California, I did the same thing. Voila! My own eyes observed that the angles were different and that they corresponded to the latitude maps in the books.
So holding to a flat earth means to refuse to use your own given perceptive abilities. You have to work hard to ignore the basic empirical observations.
Geocentricism, on the other hand, can be held to with your eyes open, so to speak. It is possible to develop a complex system to account for observations. The system, of course, is far less elegant than the Copernican system most follow, but at least you can conceptualize relative motion that everyone may observe.
As an aside, I sometimes tell people I am a theological geocentrist. To be clear, if I were tasked with the practical problem of launching a satellite, I'd start with the formulas that come from Lagrangian mechanics, (and which assume fundamentally a Copernican system) because they are historically the most accurate and streamlined way of getting the job done. But I also remind myself that equations used to describe natural forces and motion are just that, descriptions. The elegant ones are a pleasure to behold, but they don't explain the actual behind-the-scenes activity in God's creation. No, they are summaries of what we can expect based upon precise observations.
So, even saying something simple like gravity and inertia are fundamental to orbits is saying nothing more than bodies in space are observed to act in a certain way. Who knows what makes inertia act how it does? Who know what mechanism causes masses to appear to be attracted to each other? Only God knows. The harder we look at it, the more confounding it gets.
But we know that it is an ordered Creation, and that "he upholds the worlds."
Having said all that, I reconcile myself with the observation that Creation as described in Scripture has Earth and its inhabitants, particularly mankind, as its central focus. Everything else is, at the very least, a natural revelation of God's extravagance and is to his glory in unfathomable ways.
My weather app says "sunrise" and "sunset." I guess the folks at Weather Underground have a geocentric conviction...
I don't think that anyone claims that the sun is the center of the universe--It's just the center of our solar system.
Says who? The sun is the center of our solar system in a heliocentric model. The earth is the center in a geocentric model. Yet another is all planets and the sun orbit the barycenter. They're just reference frames. They say nothing about reality.
To the OP regarding "flat earth", only conspiracy theory nuts believe in it. It has not been a prominent theory since ancient Greece. It was used by evolutionists to make fun of creationists. The odd thing is it has somehow gained popularity.
I was just pointing out that heliocentrism doesn't teach that the sun is the center of the universe. If you're going to argue against something, at least try to give an accurate representation of it. Otherwise, you discredit yourself.
By the way, if geocentrism is true, we don't live in a solar system.
I was just responding to "It's just the center of our solar system." What did I represent inaccurately?
You are correct that "solar system" did not exist prior to heliocentrism becoming a popular reference frame.
This thread - giving oxygen to the idea that the earth is a round, flat disc - is the type of thing that gives non-believers the ammunition they need to believe that Christians are idiots.
Besides: if the earth were a round, flat disc, cats would have pushed everything off over the edge by now.
In post #34, you claimed that heliocentrists maintain that the sun is the center of the universe, and pointed out the arbitrariness of that teaching. However, no one teaches that. I think that any heliocentrist would agree that the sun is an arbitrary choice for the center of the universe.
"Not only that, but choosing an arbitrary point in the universe as the center (e.g. the sun) has theological implications, doesn't it?"
This sentence? The sun is an arbitrary point* in the universe in which to have celestial bodies orbit. A point in the universe other than the earth in which celestial bodies orbit (e.g. the sun) has theological implications.
*not really arbitrary, it does make math easier for some calculations
Unless you're just attempting to strain a gnat and suggesting I should have said "an arbitrary point in the solar system"? I doubt that though.
On issues concerning geocentricity, John Byl is very helpful in explaining the role of presuppositions in science. You can find him on his blog and on YouTube. I think it's important to look into the matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unless I have misunderstood you (which is altogether possible) the sentence you quoted implies that heliocentrists teach that the sun is the center of the universe. If I have understood you correctly, then your statement is extremely imprecise, to the point of creating a straw man.
I don't think I'm straining at a gnat to insist on precise language here.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood you.
Let's stay focused on the OP: flat earth or sphere
If you want to discuss geocentricity start another thread or, better still see:
Thread closed for a few hours while we reset.
Thread now re-opened.
What do the scriptures say? Do we have any verses that tell us anything one way or the other?
I have no idea what this means, but it's funny to imagine.
I don't know what the point would be for a worldwide cover-up to try to hide the fact that the world is flat. There's no reason for a secret like that. Especially when there's many Christians who work for NASA and satellite companies, etc. I just remember hearing about a devout Christian astronaut who when into space, and left a video devotional he made for his son to watch every night he was gone. Sadly he never returned, but I couldn't see someone with such a devotion to God ever trying to cover up such a silly thing as a flat earth.
The internet and social media are perfect for crazies. It's that simple.
Calling fellow Christians idiots and crazies and rebellious or stubborn is disgraceful.
The flat earther I referred to earlier is a devout Christian who graduated from medical school. The model is impressive and "works".
They would say the only people who have to be "in on the conspiracy" are the few supposedly pretending to be in outer space and the top dogs at NASA. All the rest are clueless sheep doing all the math and construction and engineering that in reality goes nowhere. Greed is a powerful motivator for fake programs. Think how much they could pocket.
Look, I am not flat earth and I already explained why. But you explain how the physical bodies of Enoch and Elijah and Jesus were physically taken to a created physical place billions and billions of light years away beyond the stars. Who exactly are the crazies now????
If anybody here wants to respond to flat earth with some respect and helpful imput- what I read here is not going to change them one iota- then study Barry Setterfield's extensive research on the speed of light decay.
In a nut shell, when creation fell and Adam fell, the speed of light began to decay at parabolic rates. And don't worry, e=mc squared is all accounted for. People don't realize how much creation fell with Adam's sin. The gradual slope of speed of light decay (CDK) the past 400 years as measured can not be dismissed as just from less precise instruments than we have today. Research this. Show your flat earth friends that they are RIGHT that the stars are not billions of light years away, but are close, and heaven is just beyond and the bodies of Elijah and Enoch were able to be moved there in a reasonable time. They don't need the dome model of the flat earth heavens. A sphere model with Setterfield's speed of light decay answers their biblical concerns perfectly well.
I really think some of you need to repent. I am sure the contempt is based on ignorance as opposed to something darker, but it is disgraceful none the less.
Thread is now closed. Let's move on.
The "four corners" of the earth from the flat earth perspective: