My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
Can you explain how God hung the earth on nothing?
Geocentricity Question
- Thread starter Timmay
- Start date
- Status
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
You might be interested in the DVD series I mentioned. Geocentricity can be mathematically proven. Many of the great scientists haven't been completely honest.
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Melissa, how is this helpful? This is just combative rhetoric.
And once again, there is no mathematical "proof". I can write a series of equations describing just about anything, real or imagined. But that proves nothing. If the insistence is that evidence backs it up, then we need to talk physical models.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
You can't just say that while ignoring the mathematical and physical matters I'm raising and expect to be taken seriously.
The accounts in Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20 are historical narratives that teach the cessation of the sun’s normal movement. I realize there is push back about that but I don’t see any way around it (neither did Nietzsche!).
An informative exercise is to do a PB search of “geocentricity” with “MW” in the member field (that’s Rev. Matthew Winzer).
An informative exercise is to do a PB search of “geocentricity” with “MW” in the member field (that’s Rev. Matthew Winzer).
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
If I can talk about a "sunrise" while believing that the apparent rising of the sun is due to the earth's rotation, why couldn't the scripture speak in the same manner about the sun stopping? It's a moot point that Joshua and 2 Kings are historical passages, because I'm not claiming that their language is poetic. Not all figures of speech are proper only to poetic literature. If I say "the sun rose at 7 a.m. today", that's also a historical observation, but it in no way implies that I'm a geocentrist.
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
I also gave a link to free videos. Or, you can take the time to look up the research papers for yourself and read them. As with anything we believe, it is incumbent upon us to take time to see if these things are true. I believe God has told us truths about our world and the heavens.
https://Jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm
Well, y’all just read the passages. Especially in Joshua 10, it’s pretty clear.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
I am not a physicist. Others are and present another side. It isn't like there aren't Christians who believe in geocentricity. You're free to explore that or not.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
There are lots of things in the Christian faith we cannot adequately explain yet we believe them. Coming to a geocentric point of view happened because I too literally what scripture says about the sun and wondered if that was even a thing. I was gladly surprised to find other Christians who hold to this view.
I think it was also a bit combative to be asked to explain something when I'm not a physicist and said so. To put it in a simplistic way, either there is ether moving around the earth that carries all the planets or the earth spins. God set the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament. I believe they move about in the firmament.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.
Since when are God's ways or thoughts the same as ours? Is anything too hard for Him?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
There's no such thing as "the aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I just want to say that I personally am very familiar with Winzer's arguments. I have never been convinced that the text demands a linguistically precise, physical-model interpretation and I think it's worth pointing out that he's in the great minority even in the Reformed world. Regardless, if someone feels convicted that the text does demand it, it doesn't really bother me.
What does bother me is when claims are made out to be proof, or that the Michelson-Morley tests showed the earth wasn't moving, or how there is no Doppler shift of electromagnetics or some other stuff, or this one guy's article no one has ever heard of. Sometimes the lone rogue scientist (if they can even be called that) is right, but not usually. If we want to look at evidence one way or another, let's deal with it honestly and not ignore certain aspects or misread something because it's not our area of expertise. So much of what I've seen given as evidence in the past is really just ignorance.
Timmay
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes. And yet the Big Bang cosmologists posit Dark Matter which sounds awfully a lot like the aether.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
No one here believes in big bang cosmology so that's not a very strong argument.
My Pilgrim Way
Puritan Board Freshman
It is likely the firmament that God created
These threads are fun, and some day I'll post my long-winded and probably overly cheeky thoughts on the whole set of things, but I had to comment....
I believe in a big bang. Bigger than whatever the cosmologists have come up with.
It began with a simple but overwhelmingly awesome statement:
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Gen. 1:3 KJV)
Ever really pondered light? It scares me.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Sure. Nothing wrong with that. I only mean the big bang as understood by atheists like Steven Hawking (who is an atheist no more).
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
I agree, and was instructed by Rev. Winzer’s way of not getting into models and proofs concerning the age of the earth, evolution, and, as I recall, this issue. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
So isn't it advocating concordism for one but not for the other issues?
I had to look the term up and found it means that "the teaching of the Bible on the natural world, properly interpreted, will agree with the teaching of science (when it properly understands the data)." Is that what you have in mind? But I'm not sure what "it" is in your question, or what you're thinking by bringing up advocating...could you rephrase?
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
It referring to 'geocentrism.'
I would say the harm was done to the Christian witness when the church capitulated to the science of the day and let go of clinging to the Scriptures concerning this. The only reason for it was that they were ashamed of the testimony of Scripture in the face of the new science theories and models.
But as far as hermenuetics, what does the narrator of the passage (the Holy Spirit) relate in Joshua 10:12-14? "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 it before or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man..."
Ok, sorry Trent, I'm not really understanding the question. I don't think I meant to advocate concordism at all.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
NathanielRCalloway
Puritan Board Freshman
.
Last edited:
- Status
