CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Well, you did say this:
Which at least implies that you understand how it can be proven.
Geocentricity Question
- Thread starter Timmay
- Start date
- Status
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
God made the earth first. The sun, moon, and stars came on the 4th day and were placed in the firmament. Earth is not in the firmament.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Sure, along with the heavens.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you men have nothing better to do than nitpick something you have no interest in looking at for yourselves before dismissing it? I understand the concepts set forth but cannot explain the mathematics. I'll leave that to all the really smart people
Sister,
The only thing you have been "taken to task" for (if we can even call it that) is the numerous statements you have made that either imply or outright assert that those who hold to a heliocentric theory do not believe by faith the plain words of the Bible, such as...
...implying heliocentrists do not...
...implying heliocentrists did not...
...implying heliocentrists do not, and...
...implying heliocentrists do not.
So, please, do not play the victim here. I would suggest rather cleaning up your rhetoric a bit to make it more charitable, engage with and by means of actual arguments instead of implied ad hominem, and tone down the angst a little. Even if we all end up disagreeing here, we can still enjoy fellowship.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
No victim here. I was asked repeatedly to prove or explain things... I'm exasperated by those who say I imply they do not believe scripture because they don't believe as I do. To me, that is uncharitable and simply not true. There's much we probably don't see eye to eye on and yet we all believe scripture.
I do not apologize for my interpretation. I will apologize if it came across as uncharitable. With that, I will extract myself from this conversation. One day, we'll all understand everything perfectly.
As I just asked that our sister engage by means of actual arguments, I request now that those of us on the other side do, as well. There is no need for this kind of sarcastic non-argument, especially when some of us are trying to bring the thread back into cool-headed reasonableness. It's a disservice to all of us.
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Junior
From the perspective of Earth, everything was created in six 24-hour days. From the perspective of Earth, the sun stood still. And regardless of the Earth’s physical location in the universe (which is an improper question if the the universe is unbounded, but would appear very near the center if bounded), it is certainly the theological center.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Trying to be a mediating force: I'm convinced that neither view is inconsistent with Scripture, and my understanding is that physics cannot prove either view (Einstein established that, and I don't think he's been disproven).
In the basis of those two axioms, though I follow these discussions with interest, I have no opinion on the subject. Can we all agree that someone can be a consistent Christian and a heliocentrist on the one hand, and that someone can be a geocentrist and not an ignoramus on the other hand?
Certain geocentric models are absurd; so are certain heliocentric models. I know enough about physics to know that I don't know nearly enough about physics to speak with authority about the mechanics of the universe on a broad scale.
Just a few thoughts from someone squarely in the middle of this interesting debate.
In the basis of those two axioms, though I follow these discussions with interest, I have no opinion on the subject. Can we all agree that someone can be a consistent Christian and a heliocentrist on the one hand, and that someone can be a geocentrist and not an ignoramus on the other hand?
Certain geocentric models are absurd; so are certain heliocentric models. I know enough about physics to know that I don't know nearly enough about physics to speak with authority about the mechanics of the universe on a broad scale.
Just a few thoughts from someone squarely in the middle of this interesting debate.
Petra
Puritan Board Freshman
I don’t think the point of the text is to teach either. Neither do I think the meteorologist is a fool for speaking the language of babes, either. Doubt most of them are geocentric in their views.
“Out of the mouth of babes...”
God allows his children to do the story telling
Edit: forgot I was done posting on this thread. Can’t stand this Florida opt out game and was distracted.
“Out of the mouth of babes...”
God allows his children to do the story telling
Edit: forgot I was done posting on this thread. Can’t stand this Florida opt out game and was distracted.
Last edited:
This has been the best thing said in this thread. Thank you, brother!
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Just to comment on this, I'd be happy to entertain a good geocentrist model but what I have seen so far seems to be more of piecemeal theories: theory A accounts for phenomenon A and theory B accounts for phenomenon B...but theory A and B don't work together. It also typically seems to be post hoc, coming up with explanations for observations to explain away problems but never makes any verifiable predictions of its own.
As to Einstein saying that neither could be proven, if I recall correctly, he was talking about a mathematical model. And that's true, you can pick either frame of reference, and it's pretty much impossible to observe yourself when you are part of the observation, but I have yet to see a physical geocentrist model that accounts for what we do observe. If you have the quote or article I'd be happy to take a look at it again though.
I'm not claiming to be an expert in these fields by any means, but I do think I have a better grasp than most and have read the geocentrist articles and watched videos recommended by people on this board for many years, and so far haven't seen anything that makes me question the current understanding of the physics of the universe, though I'm more than open to a good case.
I'd certainly agree that both sides can be consistent Christians.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
Logan, aren’t you employing a bit of snark with your like to this comment since its laughable any of us could actually believe such nonsense?
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Not really, it is a joke based on my name and a reflection on my natural flesh to believe the world revolves around me. My statement has ZERO to do with making a case either for or against any planetary model.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
For those who don’t know that about you or inside jokes, perhaps it’s charitable to disclose.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
It is literally my name, which is reflected in both my PB username and my signature. No offense was intended. It was an attempt to lighten the mood.
Hopefully expressions involving personal feelings, being offended, etc. can be laid aside in this thread ongoing; the OP requested more information and conversation, which needs a better climate to happen and it's worth keeping the thread open for.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
Please accept my apology. It was not evident to me that what Grant said was an inside joke. Not helpful.
I'll just note that up until Henry Morris, there was no organized young earth creation movement to attract scientists and thinkers who could begin to come up with models. (Were there even any public apologists for the hermenuetic that read Genesis as historic narrative?) AiG began in 1980. Now of course the momentum is with those organizations and that hermenuetic in reading Genesis. I'm way over my head in any kind of conversation about models, but do know that every model presented by young earth scientists, even with all the advances in thinking and study, is still laughed to scorn by unbelievers and theistic evolutionists. How useful is a scientific model for those things which we must take by faith? (Hebrews 11:3)
To the OP, one of the best people to read and talk to right now about issues surrounding geocentricity, that I know of, is John Byl (bylogos.blogspot.com).
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not sure I understand your point. You say that “from the perspective of Earth” both six day creation and the standing still of the sun occurred. Are you referring to an impression of these events from someone observing them as an earth-dweller, with the earth as their reference point, or are you saying both events occurred in time and space as described in Scripture? Could you kindly clarify?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I think he means the former, like when we see the sun "rise."
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Junior
They are absolutely accurate to our experience and everyday language. Regardless of how all the mechanics worked, an observer from earth would never say he saw or felt the earth stop rotating.
For what it's worth, I’m a young creationist, but noncommittal on the heliocentrism debate (at least in terms of debating a side. I find the discussions interesting. I think it is certainly easier to conceive in terms of observing the “motions of the heavens” to be heliocentric).
In terms of science in general, I think we need to get back to understanding that science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Gravity isn’t a thing dictating how objects relate to one another. It is simply a mathematical description of how God tends to uphold all things by the word of His power. Hawking made gravity a god.
Last edited:
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not sure anyone truly knows the entirety of the movement of the heavens, but I still don't understand how the sun doesn't move or have a course in relation to earth vs. the other way around.
Isaiah 38:8 is another example. In Job 9:7, God commands the sun not to rise. Why does God command the sun if it doesn't move? That is not anthropomorphic like God has hands or eyes.
Here is Matthew Henry on Job;
"Nothing more constant than the rising sun, it never misses its appointed time; yet God, when he pleases, can suspend it. He that at first commanded it to rise can countermand it. Once the sun was told to stand, and another time to retreat, to show that it is still under the check of its great Creator. Thus great is God's power; and how great then is his goodness, which causes his sun to shine even upon the evil and unthankful, though he could withhold it!"
An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it. Yet, God, made man to dwell on earth and set His love and affection on sinful man on the earth! That is where the eyes of the Lord are. If earth is just another sphere orbiting around the sun, what is special about that other than it contains life? Scripture also says the earth has pillars and is immovable. How can an orbiting earth have pillars and why are they necessary? What is even the point of saying it has pillars or is fixed and immovable?
Isaiah 38:8 is another example. In Job 9:7, God commands the sun not to rise. Why does God command the sun if it doesn't move? That is not anthropomorphic like God has hands or eyes.
Here is Matthew Henry on Job;
"Nothing more constant than the rising sun, it never misses its appointed time; yet God, when he pleases, can suspend it. He that at first commanded it to rise can countermand it. Once the sun was told to stand, and another time to retreat, to show that it is still under the check of its great Creator. Thus great is God's power; and how great then is his goodness, which causes his sun to shine even upon the evil and unthankful, though he could withhold it!"
An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it. Yet, God, made man to dwell on earth and set His love and affection on sinful man on the earth! That is where the eyes of the Lord are. If earth is just another sphere orbiting around the sun, what is special about that other than it contains life? Scripture also says the earth has pillars and is immovable. How can an orbiting earth have pillars and why are they necessary? What is even the point of saying it has pillars or is fixed and immovable?
Last edited:
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Though it may be unwise to jump in to an already heated discussion, I'll have a go at this post of yours, Melissa. First of all, there needs be nothing particularly special about the earth for God to pay extra attention to it: the was nothing particularly special in you or me--just another of humanity's billions in the sea of life, and he set his love on us from eternity past. His way are past searching out--logic cannot plumb them all.
Secondly, the earth having pillars and being immovable describes it in relation to us--we cannot budge it the merest hair's breadth. As far as we're concerned, it's fixed immovably beneath us. To suggest that the pillars of the earth are somehow outside of the earth and holding it up goes against the bit where God hangs the earth on nothing, which you brought up before. The pillars of the earth could easily be the rocky foundations you may have even stood on yourself, and whose tops form the mountains. They need not be the support of the entire planet, which, after all, is hung on nothing, kept it it's place by God who uses gravity and the laws of physics that he established to uphold and direct all creation.
- Status
