Geocentricity Question

[Grant]

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.

So you are saying that because pagans have worshiped the sun, that this morphed into the belief that earth rotates around the sun? If so, this is a reason I have a hard time taking the geocentrism argument seriously. Far more have and do worship this fading world and all it’s supposed “riches” .... would it then follow that the geocentrism view is likely pagan?

If you keep making the argument from points that both views agree upon, then it becomes hard to see the reasonings. This question is not intended to belittle you at all, I ask sincerely because these same arguments arose in my former SBC church from an elder who went down a YouTube rabbit hole: Do you also hold that the earth is flat?

 

[Eyedoc84]

As if pagans don’t worship the earth.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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?

Melissa, John Gill says on this language in the Psalms: "...for though by the fire, at the general conflagration, the heavens and the earth will be so melted and dissolved as to lose their present form, and shall be purged and purified from all noxious qualities, the effects of sin; yet the substance will remain, out of which will be formed new heavens and a new earth, and this through the power of Christ sustaining it, and preserving it from entire destruction or annihilation. R. Obadiah by "pillars" understands in a figurative sense the righteous, for whose sake the world is continued in its being; these at the general conflagration will be bore up and preserved by Christ, whom they shall meet in the air, even the church, who is the pillar and ground of truth; and not only the ministers of the Gospel, who are pillars in Christ's house, but also every believer, which is a pillar there, that shall never go out, 1 Timothy 3:15. Aben Ezra and Kimchi interpret the pillars of the mountains."

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

Melissa, John Gill says on this language in the Psalms: "...for though by the fire, at the general conflagration, the heavens and the earth will be so melted and dissolved as to lose their present form, and shall be purged and purified from all noxious qualities, the effects of sin; yet the substance will remain, out of which will be formed new heavens and a new earth, and this through the power of Christ sustaining it, and preserving it from entire destruction or annihilation. R. Obadiah by "pillars" understands in a figurative sense the righteous, for whose sake the world is continued in its being; these at the general conflagration will be bore up and preserved by Christ, whom they shall meet in the air, even the church, who is the pillar and ground of truth; and not only the ministers of the Gospel, who are pillars in Christ's house, but also every believer, which is a pillar there, that shall never go out, 1 Timothy 3:15. Aben Ezra and Kimchi interpret the pillars of the mountains."

Thank you. I understand about the pillars not necessarily being fixed on nothingness and was probably a bad example. It still doesn't answer my question about the sun and its apparent motion.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

So you are saying that because pagans have worshiped the sun, that this morphed into the belief that earth rotates around the sun? If so, this is a reason I have a hard time taking the geocentrism argument seriously. Far more have and do worship this fading world and all it’s supposed “riches” .... would it then follow that the geocentrism view is likely pagan?

If you keep making the argument from points that both views agree upon, then it becomes hard to see the reasonings. This question is not intended to belittle you at all, I ask sincerely because these same arguments arose in my former SBC church from an elder who went down a YouTube rabbit hole: Do you also hold that the earth is flat?

Not saying that.

Just my own thoughts: helio - sun centric - center. Much like Christocentric. It is the object being worshiped and of most importance.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

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.

I agree about the pillars and wasn't the best example. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Yes, nothing special about us, but we are made in God's image and He sent His son to earth so sinners may be reconciled to Him. In that sense, He does set His love and affection on man over all other creation.

 

[Grant]

Not saying that.

Just my own thoughts: helio - sun centric - center. Much like Christocentric. It is the object being worshiped and of most importance.

Melissa, it still seems you are because you seem to restate it in other words in this reinsert post as well. So by that logic could one Not say:

“Geo - earth centric - center. So worshipping the earth” ?

 

[hammondjones]

Heliocentrism is a shorthand anyway. The planets do not obit the sun, but rather the solar system's barycenter - the center of mass of the solar system. The sun itself orbits the solar system barycenter, which incidentally is not always, though usually, within the bounds of the solar mass itself.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

Melissa, it still seems you are because you seem to restate it in other words in this reinsert post as well. So by that logic could one Not say:

“Geo - earth centric - center. So worshipping the earth” ?

I see your point. Wasn't what I was aiming for.

 

[Grant]

I see your point. Wasn't what I was aiming for.

For what it’s worth I am still very thankful these discussions come up. I certainly, currently at least, do not hold to geocentrism. However, seeing how it does come up in reading some reformed and Puritan works, I think it is still helpful to wrestle with and chew on. I still appreciate there being board members who hold the view.

 

[My Pilgrim Way]

For what it’s worth I am still very thankful these discussions come up. I certainly, currently at least, do not hold to geocentrism. However, seeing how it does come up in reading some reformed and Puritan works, I think it is still helpful to wrestle with a chew on. I still appreciate there being board members who hold the view.

Thanks. I've probably contributed all I'm able.

 

[lynnie]

Hey OP, haven't had time to read the whole thread so sorry if any of this is a dupe.

This has a lot of information from Robert Sungenis:

Home | robertsungenis.com

galileowaswrong.com

Lovely set of quotes:

Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes

I've gone through the Stationary Earth thread and ordered the quotes into easily searchable categories here. Just click on the links below and it will take you

christian-wilderness.forumvi.com

Somebody mentioned Malcolm Bowden. He is good for a basic easy to understand introduction to this. He was my introduction back in the 90s (book, before youtube).

Barry Setterfield I don't think is geo, might be, but his work on the decaying speed of light since creation figures in to some of the concepts.

Somewhere in the endless threads on this I posted the Time Magazine Man of the Century 2000 article about Einstein. It states right there in the liberal glory of that magazine that for decades scientists were stumped by the experimental proofs that the earth was at rest. Along came the genius of Einstein who figured out that light does not behave like all the other waves where we add and subtract velocity measurements as we move to or from a wave source. No, as we spin towards a star on one side of our alleged orbit, and away from the star six months later on the other side of our orbit, the light from the star will measure the same, unlike all other waves. Voila, problem solved.

The real debate now is not geocentricity versus heliocentricity. It is the theory of relativity versus classic wave physics, and how does light really behave. The geocentrists have numerous rebuttals of the theory of relativity and the supposed proofs of relativity. Its a debate right up there with proofs of evolution or the earth being billions of years old vs the proofs that Darwin and old earth are wrong.

At the end of the day you can find somebody on both sides to prove that their position is the right one, so you can't escape a leap of faith. You have to choose Einstein or literal scripture.

 

[83r17h]

The real debate now is not geocentricity versus heliocentricity. It is the theory of relativity versus classic wave physics, and how does light really behave. The geocentrists have numerous rebuttals of the theory of relativity and the supposed proofs of relativity. Its a debate right up there with proofs of evolution or the earth being billions of years old vs the proofs that Darwin and old earth are wrong.

If the problem is relativity, then there's pretty convincing evidence for it. We all use GPS. But, GPS satellites travel at high enough velocities in orbit that special relativity becomes an important factor in getting the equations and algorithms correct, and general relativity's effect on time from gravity (based on the gravity difference between orbit and ground) also has an effect. Basically, if we discounted relativity, GPS wouldn't work.

 

[VictorBravo]

If the problem is relativity,

I don't think that's the issue. Agreeing with your point, I really don't think Einstein needs to be pitted against Scripture here.

His theory is based on and supported by observations. Those observations may be mind-blowing in some ways, but they are measurable and usable.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

An interesting point about pagan religion is that they worship the sun. Their religion revolves around it.

Figuratively, sure. Literally, pagans never taught heliocentricism. I hope you don't intend to imply that heliocentrists are more pagan than geocentrists. As for your question of what would be special about the earth if it's not the center of the universe,
1) it was made for the habitation of mankind, who is made in the image of God.
2) it was here that God first manifested himself to mankind.
3) it was here that Christ the Son of God became man, lived, suffered, died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven
4) it is here that he will return to judge the living and the dead.
5) it is the dwelling place of the holy catholic church, where we have the communion of the saints militant, and where we prepare for a heavenly inheritance.
I hope that you share my belief that all of those things are more important than the earth's physical location. I would also like to note that if the center of the universe is really more important than the rest, and the earth is at the center, then the center of the earth must be more important than the surface, where all of those things take place, because it would be the absolute center of the universe. And that strikes me as a little absurd.

 

[lynnie]

If the problem is relativity, then there's pretty convincing evidence for it. We all use GPS. But, GPS satellites travel at high enough velocities in orbit that special relativity becomes an important factor in getting the equations and algorithms correct, and general relativity's effect on time from gravity (based on the gravity difference between orbit and ground) also has an effect. Basically, if we discounted relativity, GPS wouldn't work.

There are physicists and astronomers and mathematicians in the geocentric camp who would disagree, and all this is covered in detail in their research. But I just don't have time to go looking for articles. I figure if people are open they will check out available literature. One of the most technical guys is Gerardus Bouw. A while ago Martin Selbrede of Chalcedon did some talks on this too. You can discount relativity and everything works just fine.

I can't remember how far out "earth" goes when you talk about being at rest and the daily rotation of the universe (which is nowhere near as far away as claimed, see Setterfield). I don't remember where satellites are, ie, in the rest part or the rotating part. I'm vaguely thinking rotating but I could be wrong. Its all out there in the literature though. Fascinating stuff. Geocentricity is based on and supported by observations....and the effect of the rotating universe causes the phenomena attributed to heliocentricity.

 

[Eyedoc84]

For those who are against reading “sunrise”-type language in scripture phenomenologically, do you think the Sun and Moon are actually the largest objects in the universe outside of Earth?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

For those who are against reading “sunrise”-type language in scripture phenomenologically, do you think the Sun and Moon are actually the largest objects in the universe outside of Earth?

I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)

In turn, I’m interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 can be taken phenomenologically. Would like to understand that thinking.

 

[RamistThomist]

I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)

Because the Sun was created to be the ruler in the sky during the day and the moon rules the outer space. Yet we know they aren't the biggest objects in space.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I’ve never thought that, why do you ask? (Maybe I missed something said earlier.)

In turn, I’m interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 can be taken phenomenologically. Would like to understand that thinking.

Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.

 

[ZackF]

Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.

That’s interesting on both accounts as the moon has about the worse albedo possible.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Because the Sun was created to be the ruler in the sky during the day and the moon rules the outer space. Yet we know they aren't the biggest objects in space.

Is there something in the Hebrew that necessitates the sun and the moon being the biggest objects in space? And I've never heard that the moon rules outer space; Genesis says that God made the moon to rule the night.

Creation account. God made “2” great lights. And for that matter, he calls the moon a “light” not a “mirror”.

Well the moon is a luminary, it gives off light. The moon and the planets as well as the sun are all luminaries.
I am not seeing the issues in the text you guys are apparently seeing.

John Gill says of Genesis 1:14-16:

"And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven,.... To continue there as luminous bodies; as enlighteners, as the word signifies, causing light, or as being the instruments of conveying it, particularly to the earth, as follows:

to give light upon the earth; and the inhabitants of it, when formed:

and it was so: these lights were formed and placed in the firmament of the heaven for such uses, and served such purposes as God willed and ordered they should."

Gill continues, "...this [the sun] is called the "greater" light, in comparison of the moon, not only with respect to its body or substance, but on account of its light, which is far greater and stronger than that of the moon; and which indeed receives its light from it, the moon being, as is generally said, an opaque body:

...'and the lesser light to rule the night'; to give light then, though in a fainter, dimmer way, by reflecting it from the sun; and it rules alone, the sun being absent from the earth, and is of great use to travellers and sailors; it is called the lesser light, in comparison of the sun."

 

[RamistThomist]

Is there something in the Hebrew that necessitates the sun and the moon being the biggest objects in space? And I've never heard that the moon rules outer space; Genesis says that God made the moon to rule the night.

Usually the ruler is the biggest object

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Usually the ruler is the biggest object

Where do you get that? I asked earlier, is this assertion based on something in the Hebrew that doesn't show up in our translation? I see "rule" transliterated is memshalah, which Strong's defines in terms of dominion and government, and not size.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

And I’m still interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 is properly taken phenomenologically.

 

[RamistThomist]

Where do you get that? I asked earlier, is this assertion based on something in the Hebrew that doesn't show up in our translation? I see "rule" transliterated is memshalah, which Strong's defines in terms of dominion and government, and not size.

It doesn't have to be size, I guess. But we have to realize that ancient man wouldn't have had our modern cosmology and would have thought it common sense that the sun is bigger than some star light years away, even though in actual fact it isn't.

To make matters worse: by the same standard of reasoning, does the earth have corners, per Psalm 95 and passim? Is Sheol a big hole underground (which, interestingly, would validate a hollow earth. I'm not opposed to that idea)?

 

[RamistThomist]

And I’m still interested in how the historical narrative in Joshua 10:12-14 and Isaiah 38:8 is properly taken phenomenologically.

For me to explain the how of it, phenomenologically, I would have had to be there. That's the whole point behind phenomenological explanations. I can do that with the sun rise, because I see it every day.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

have to realize that ancient man wouldn't have had our modern cosmology and would have thought it common sense that the sun is bigger than some star light years away

That's neither here nor there. The point is, what did God reveal to us about these luminaries?

To make matters worse: by the same standard of reasoning, does the earth have corners

What are these matters made worse by this question... and what standard of reasoning do you refer to?
I think the corners of the earth refers to the extremities of the earth; north, south, east, and west.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's neither here nor there. The point is, what did God reveal to us about these luminaries?

It is exactly here and there. God revealed to man according to man's capacity to understand (Calvin: "God lisped"). If God chose to reveal to man but only in terms of relativity and quantum mechanics, he would have failed in his revelation.

What are these matters made worse by this question...

It would imply flat earth, or at least a non-spherical earth.

and what standard of reasoning do you refer to?

I have no idea what that question means.

I think the corners of the earth refers to the extremities of the earth; north, south, east, and west.

Doesn't sound literal. Sounds metaphorical, almost phenomenological.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

For me to explain the how of it, phenomenologically, I would have had to be there. That's the whole point behind phenomenological explanations. I can do that with the sun rise, because I see it every day.

I meant explain how an event described as happening in space and time (in a historical narrative of Scripture) can be taken phenomenologically. The texts in Joshua and Isaiah have markers of time and measurement in them: "for about a day" and the sun returning "10 degrees."