Geocentricity Question

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

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

Bingo.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

Joshua clearly intends to communicate the strong arm of the Lord and His almighty power such that the sun and moon were stopped at His will.

Contrary to this, Joshua does not intend to communicate *how* the heavens normatively behave, or the Earths relationship to the heavens.

To import geocentrism to this text is eisegesis and a mangling of the clear teaching of scripture. Now, you may say that geocentrism is implied in the text. The argumemt could be made that necesarily for God to stop the heavens, it must conform to a geocentric model. However, this argument is neither valid nor sound. It does not follow that since God stopped the heavens, they must take a geocentric form.

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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).

 

[NathanielRCalloway]

.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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]

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.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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.

Joshua clearly intends to communicate the strong arm of the Lord and His almighty power such that the sun and moon were stopped at His will.

Contrary to this, Joshua does not intend to communicate *how* the heavens normatively behave, or the Earths relationship to the heavens.

To import geocentrism to this text is eisegesis and a mangling of the clear teaching of scripture. Now, you may say that geocentrism is implied in the text. The argumemt could be made that necesarily for God to stop the heavens, it must conform to a geocentric model. However, this argument is neither valid nor sound. It does not follow that since God stopped the heavens, they must take a geocentric form.

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]

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

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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.

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]

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.

 

[NathanielRCalloway]

.

 

[Grant]

 

[Taylor]

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.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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]

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.

 

[Logan]

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.

 

[Taylor]

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]

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]

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]

.

 

[Taylor]

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.

I never implied anyone doesn't believe scripture.

Yes, you did, right here:

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

 

[NathanielRCalloway]

.

 

[Logan]

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.

 

[Logan]

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.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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]

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]

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

 

[Petra]

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