Post-Reformation discussions on the uprising Copernican system

Status
Not open for further replies.

Apologia Christou

Puritan Board Freshman
I am looking for discussions of any kind, like comments, debates, treatises or anything, and where I can find and read them. I know from reading Edwards and Hodge that they accepted it, but I never found any longer arguments for or against it. I think Luther argued from Joshua that the Corpernican system was flawed and against Scripture. Something like that.
 
I'm not sure if this fits your criteria, but it's the first thing I thought of:

"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word states that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."​
—Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 1:64-65.​
 
There wasnt much in the Puritan Works I could find by searching the name, but that doesnt mean it wasnt discussed more, just maybe under a different title.


"Use 1. To wean us from placing our happiness in the study of the creatures:
There is no rest in them, no satisfaction to the mind, no such newness, as
in those things wherein true happiness standeth. Some of the Philosophers
placed happiness in contemplation (meaning of the creatures) but showeth
they were deceived. Many a man thinketh, that if he could attain to the
knowledge and mysterse of this or that trade he should need no more good.
But it is even with trades, as with the creatures, they are full of labor,
and yet empty of satisfying the mind, empty of newness.

Use 2. To exhort to the study and searching out of the favor of God, the
blood of Christ, the grace of his Spirit, the Word of God, &c. These will
answer our hearts with rest, and fullness, and newhesse of comfort and
contentment.

Use 3. For trial of our happiness, whether we have made right choice of it;
if we bend our studies and labors upon things that are full of labor, and
yet empty of satisfying the mind with contentment and newness, we have
misplaced our happiness.

But if we find rest, and satisfaction, and newness in the things we are
conversant about; it is a sign we have chosen heavenly things to place our
happiness in. A right choice.

From the Suns motion, verse. 5. observe

First, (against Copernius) that the Sun standeth not still, but the
earth, Psal. 19.5.

Secondly, against the opinion of such that do think the Heavens and Planets
are moved by Intelligences. The same is here said to arise and go down, to
hasten, not to be carried or moved passively, Psal. 19.5. the Sun is said
freely to run his course, or which is all one, to rejoice to run it.

Thirdly, the Sun is endued with life; for whatsoever stirreth and moveth it
self in his own place, is quick and liveth."
John Cotton - Brief Exposition of Ecc.


"I take its first Ground and Foundation to have been in London, about the
year 1645. (if not sooner) when the same Dr. Wilkins (then Chaplain to the
Prince Elector Palatine, in London ) Dr. Jonathan Goddard, Dr. Ent, (now
Sir George Ent ) Dr. Glisson, Dr. Scarbrough, (now Sir Charles Scarbrough
) Dr. Merrit, with myself and some others, met weekly, (sometimes at Dr.
Goddards Lodgings, sometimes at the Mitre in Wood-street hard by) at a
certain day and hour, under a certain Penalty, and a weekly Contribution
for the Charge of Experiments, with certain Rules agreed upon amongst us.
Where (to avoid diversion to other discourses, and for some other reasons)
we barred all Discourses of Divinity, of State-Affairs, and of News, (other
than what concerned our business of Philosophy) confining ourselves to
Philosophical Inquiries, and such as related thereunto; as Physic, Anatomy,
Geometry, Astronomy, Navigation, Staticks, Mechanics, and Natural
Experiments. We there discoursed the Circulation of the Blood, the Valves
in the Veins, the Copernican Hypothesis, the Nature of Comets and new 〈◊〉
, the Attendants on Jupiter, the Oval shape of Saturn, the Inequalities and
Se • enography of the Moon, the several Phases of Venus and Mercury, the
Improvement of Telescopes, and grinding of Glasses for that purpose,
(wherein Dr. Goddard was particularly engaged, and did maintain an Operator
in his house for that purpose) the weight of the Air, the Possibility or
Impossibility of Vacuities, and Natures abhorrence thereof, the
Torricellian Experiment in Quicksilver, the Descent of Heavy Bodies, and
the Degrees of Acceleration therein; with others of like nature. Some of
which were then but new Discoveries, and others not so generally known and
embraced as now they are."
John Wallis - A defense of the Royalist Society


"
This moving of the Earth is far different from that constant motion that
some Philosophers ascribe unto it; for amongst the several Systems of the
World which Astronomers have invented, three are more famous, one by
Ptolemy, the other by Copernicus, and the third by Tycho Brache. Copernicus
following the Pythagoreans, asserts the motion of the Earth, and the Sun to
be in the Center of the World, without motion; that the Earth hath two
motions, one Diurnal, which is performed about its own Axis in the space of
24 hours, and from this motion do arise our days and nights: the other
Annual, whereby it is carried about the Sun, from the West towards the
East, according to the succession of Signs of the Zodiac. Where then is the
miracle▪ of the Sun's standing still in Joshua 's days, if it stand still
in all Ages? where is the wonder of the Earths moving, if it whirl about
every 24 hours with so swift a motion? why cannot all People discern this
constant motion of the Earth, that do perceive its shaking for a few
minutes, and are so much affrighted at it? Are the Pillars of the Earth
turned into Wheels? Some have denied all motion, some affirm too much: but
as when all motion was denied, a Philosopher to prove it, rose up and
walked; so when the constant, daily, and yearly motion of the Earth is
asserted, we may know by our Senses that it stands still; but these great
men of reason (so they are) will, give you this presently for an Axiom,
Sensibus non est fidendum, you must not believe, nor trust your Senses:
which yet for the sake of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, I should not
readily receive; but knowing that my Senses cannot err about their proper
object, when it is presented at a due distance, through a right disposed,
a Papist shall not persuade me that the Bread after Consecration is not
Bread, and that the Wine is not Wine, nor a Copernican that the Earth doth
naturally move, when in the one, by my Senses I discern it to be Bread and
Wine, and not real Flesh and Blood carnally and corporally taken, and in
the other, that the Earth stands fast and still, so much confidence I will
put in my Senses: a drunken man that by excess hath disturbed his head,
might conceit the Earth turns round, and the room where he is doth move,
when the motion and turning is in his Brains, and when he hath slept
himself sober will perceive, what he thought before did move, doth then
stand still. But it being not proper, nor profitable to this Assembly to
debate Philosophical Controversies, I shall dismiss them, and retain you
with what may be more advantageous for your Souls, in treating of this
amazing work of God which you so lately did discern, and then were so much
astonished at, and affected with, viz. God's shaking of the Earth under
your feet, and the Houses over your heads; that you did think the one did
reel under you, and the other would fall upon you. History is full, and
your own Experience can give an instance of God's terrible shaking of the
Earth. Some you have heard of, and one you have seen and felt.
Earthquakes! some you have read, and have been told you, by which
Multitudes have been destroyed. Earthquakes! one you have seen, and yet are
preserved. Earthquakes! in some God's wrath hath been poured out, and in
some his grace and mercy hath been shewn forth: some ending in destruction,
and some in the conversion of sinners. Oh! that this you have seen with
your own eyes might have the like issue and effect on you, as that you hear
of from this Text had upon the Jailor, stir you up with fear and trembling,
to go to your Ministers, as he did to the Apostles, saying, asking, Sirs,
what must I do to be saved? that by the Word of God following this mighty
work of God, you may be awakened to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus,
you and your House, as the Jailor did, and all his House."
Thomas Doolittle - Earthquakes Explained


"
§ 5. I have moreover insisted on the different apprehensions the old
Philosophers entertain concerning those insuperable difficulties that are
about Predetermination, &c. thereby to intimate, that the confident
Schoolmen, and their several Sectators, do but actum agere, and consume
their strength on needless Controversies, to the great disadvantage of true
Religion. These acting in Divinity, as our Virtuosi do in Philosophy, who,
by a zealous attempt to establish their new dogmata (as they call them) do
not walk in any untrodden paths; The Copernican Hypothesis about the
motion of the Earth, as also the learned Fancies about the Earth, and
Inhabitants that are said to be in the Moon, as well as that solid Truth
aboutthe Antipodes, so much reproached by Lactantius, were all known in
Cicero 's, if not in Plato 's, or Pythagoras 's days. For this, consult
Cicero. Quaest. Acad. l. 2."
Stephen Lobb - The Glory of Free Grace Displayed

"3. Most Expositors take the Tabernacle, as they do the Sanctuary, for
Heaven itself. And they would have the word true by a Zeugma to belong unto
the Sanctuary, as well as unto the Tabernacle, which we have also before
allowed. But yet this proveth not, that the Sanctuary and the Tabernacle
must be the same, though both be equally true in the same sense. This way
go the Greek Expositors, as Chrysostom, Theophylact and Oecumenius on the
Place. And because this Tabernacle is said to be fixed of God, Chrysostom
reproacheth them who say, that the Heavens do move and are Spherical,
though he never had a prophetical dream of the Copernican Hypothesis. But
yet as Beza well observes, they forsook their own interpretation on Chap.
9. 11, 12. where the Tabernacle is spoken of in the same sense that here it
is."
John Owen - Exposition of Hebrews

"It is the publishers affliction that he
could not attend the press, & though there be less faults committed then he
expected, yet there are more then he was willing the work should suffer by,
could he have possibly prevented it. He is not mistrustful of the Readers
charity, for the misplacing of some Hebrew words in the margent, which are
not many, and the general printing the English (Y) for the Hebrew letter
(ע) in most proper names and words, with the miscarriage of some comma's,
solicit's it, and he hopes it will engage him rather to excuse such slips
then quarrel with them. Other Errata's are subjoined to the close of each
Book to which the reader is referred for the removing. (If he think fit
before he begins his perusal) these Tilemmas he may meet with in it. If it
fall into the hands of a supercilious Philosopher he may think it strange,
and possibly be angry too that the author should pass over the 3 first
Chap. and not produce his Cabbala, and vent some new Hypothesis to the
world, or side with & plead for some already started in it, determining
which of them had most right to rule it, whether the Prolomeick Copernican
or that of Tytho; as likewise what body of Physicks should by a divine
right take place and be entertained, either the elementary, Globular, or
the newly revived Corpuscularian. And that great Phainomenon be resolved
whether Moses were not altogether Cartesian; It is certain he did believe,
and would frequently in his discourse inculcate it, that the Philosophy
which had so much puffed up the gentiles had lighted its Torch at the holy
Lamp; and he was glad to see our own and foreign champions had put it
beyond any further attachment, that that wherewith they made their flourish
they borrowed of the Church, and least it should be found to be so, did by
their mixtures debase and corrupt it, and that even the worthy's of this
last age were not discouraged from rescuing it, and returning the Honor and
Crown where 't was due. But in the mean time he never imagined that either
these Chap. or the books of Job, the Psalms and proverbs, &c. were designed
by the Spirit to furnish the world with a body of Physicks."
George Hughes - Exposition of the First Book of Moses
 
"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word states that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."

We say that too. But probably 99% of the people who speak of the Sun as 'rising' and 'setting' do not for one moment think that that is true.

Look, before I make my next observation, I want you to know that I do not know what the truth is and am therefore not trying to convince anybody of any view.

When God speaks in the Bible, probably 95% or more of the time He speaks as if he was a man like us. He changes his mind, he regrets things, he gets angry, disappointed, glad, jealous, etc., etc. We all accept that this is how God presents himself to us. So when he speaks of the Sun moving through space, why do we dogmatically take it as though that is a scientific fact.

But I got to quit now, I got to take my dog for a walk.
 
Sure it does, I am really looking for anything on this subject. I want to know how our fathers dealt with it and argued about it.

They argued about it as men of their specific context and specific level of knowledge would.

e.g., Doolittle when he says we don't feel the earth rotate every 24 hours, so why should we doubt our senses? There was a strange period in history where philosophy was rated so highly, that people didn't even bother to verify their philosophical speculation by empirically testing it, even when it was not very difficult to do so. There is a place for both philosophy and empiricism and neither should be neglected.

These men were no less prone than we are to finding purportedly solid theological reasons for objecting to new findings or concepts. But we should be careful we're finding what Scripture actually does (and does not) teach, rather than what we want it to teach.

In my firm opinion, the geocentrist trying to find Scripture support is trying to make Scripture say more than it actually does.
 
When God speaks in the Bible, probably 95% or more of the time He speaks as if he was a man like us. He changes his mind, he regrets things, he gets angry, disappointed, glad, jealous, etc., etc. We all accept that this is how God presents himself to us. So when he speaks of the Sun moving through space, why do we dogmatically take it as though that is a scientific fact.

Yep that's absolutely true. Also, the people arguing against phenomenological language in Joshua would have to face the fact that the very same passage speaks of the sun setting, which they themselves wouldn't agree is actually happening.

In my firm opinion, the geocentrist trying to find Scripture support is trying to make Scripture say more than it actually does.

Yeah but I see this going both ways. Like I heard people like MacArthur say that passages like the earth hangs on nothing is speaking of space or something like that. So generalization may be helpful to a degree only.

My problem is simply with Genesis 1. A straightforward reading raises many questions.
 
I really hope this doesn't come across badly, but...

Having grown up in fundamentalism, I left partly because of the irrational over-literalism it often employs in biblical interpretation, around which incoherent doctrines and beliefs were then constructed. I became very attracted to Reformed thinking partly on the basis of it's much more comprehensive and nuanced biblical hermeneutics, such as carefully discerning context, genres, tropes, anthrapahmorphisms, phenomenological terms, and the like. It wasn't until I later came across the PB that I first realized fundamentalist thinking wasn't just limited to cults, Hard Shell Baptists, and Pentecostals... After all, there are some interesting threads here from the past on things like geocentrism and a flat earth with corners.

Judicious hermeneutics leads one to believe that the Bible is absolutely 100% true, though not empirically literal in some places. Failure to discern this reality is to actually do a great disservice. What better way to discredit Scripture than to unnecessarily claim it says things that it never intends to address or are patently not true? With all due respect to some of our great forebears in the faith, like a'Brakel, I believe they were simply and somewhat inconsistently mistaken on this.
 
To be clear to everyone, I don’t agree with Brakel. I was merely providing the requested information to the OP. Last time I got in this discussion on Puritan Board (years ago), I remember my faith being questioned, and it led me to a hiatus from the board.
 
To be clear to everyone, I don’t agree with Brakel. I was merely providing the requested information to the OP. Last time I got in this discussion on Puritan Board (years ago), I remember my faith being questioned, and it led me to a hiatus from the board.

I don’t think anyone thought that. But may I ask, what discussion are you referring to?

And let me clarify myself here too, if I may: concerning Genesis 1, where the context clearly is visible creation, it seems to strongly imply that daylight is not the result of the sun, but works and exists independently of it. And in this context I was asking the question. But of course, I am aware the the flat earth movement. But this right here is purely based on exegesis, and therefore I wanted to know how the fathers replied to it.
 
It's worth noting that, since Einstein, geocentric and heliocentric models are equally valid, and neither can be proven empirically. Science classes still teach dogmatic heliocentrism for the same reason that they still teach Newtonian physics--convention and simplicity.
 
So, here is an example of what I mean by seeing some inconsistency in what some of our spiritual forebears had to say on scientific matters in relation to biblical hermeneutics. In the first citation, Calvin makes a'Brakel look agnostic...

…Those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns.
When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil posses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.
[Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24; in Calvini Opera Selecta, Corpus Refomatorum, Vol 49, p. 677, tr. Robert White in ‘Calvin & Copernicus: the Problem Reconsidered’ in Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), pp. 236-237]​
Yet in a different (and perhaps less "intense"?) context Calvin would also say:
Moses calls the sun and moon the two great lights [Gen. 1:16], and there is little doubt that the Psalmist here borrows the same phraseology. What is immediately added about the stars, is, as it were, accessory to the others. It is true, that the other planets are larger than the moon, but it is stated as second in order on account of its visible effects. The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and the other Prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity, as we will see men sometimes very readily pretend an incapacity to understand, when anything deep or recondite is submitted to their notice. Accordingly, as Saturn though bigger than the moon is not so to the eye owing to its greater distance, the Holy Spirit would rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned.​
[Commentary, on Psalm 136:7]​
 
Last edited:
This may be off the topic but this kind of helped me tremendously dealing with subjects like this, and I may need to go back sometime soon and translate all 5 volumes just to get the English nuggets like this; but this was taken from a DeepL translation of Kuypers Dogmatics Vol.1 (still untranslated.)

"C. The knowledge of God is the form and measure of the human.

1. Form
All knowledge depends on two moments, namely not only on the object, but also on the subject. Although the objective patefaction is the same, the result of the revelation differs according to the receptivity of the subject. For example, an organ plays its tones for a deaf person as well as for one who can hear well, but the result for the latter will be very different from the result for the former. Little or nothing is revealed to the deaf person; the hearing person comes to know the piece of music. The same is true for a blind person and a sighted person when walking in nature. Is it therefore impossible to impart knowledge to a deaf or blind person? No, but it is possible in a completely different way; one has to use the form of the deaf or of the blind with these people. They may not understand it, but they get a certain impression.

It is the same with the knowledge of God the Lord. The angels perceive things in God's revelation that we do not understand, and vice versa. Cf. 1 Petr. 1:12: “They were shown that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things now announced to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things angels long to catch a glimpse of”.; the angels desire, with a certain curiosity, to see what has been revealed to man. Yes, even it says in Ephes. 3:10: “The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms.”. So, one other is the form of angelic knowledge, another the human form. And again, quite different is the way, in which Christ knows God. Our fathers called this the knowledge of union; and therefore, they also spoke of the form and way of union, to express that Christ does possess the knowledge of God by virtue of his union with God. The self-knowledge of God is, by its very nature, divine form. But it cannot accrue to us human being’s divine form. Only human form can we grasp the knowledge of God.

By way of explanation, here is a flat but clear example. A man will have a child and a dog. Both child and dog know the man. But the way in which they do so is completely different. The dog smells his master, sometimes wool at a distance of four or five hours; that knowledge is the form of the dog. The child, on the other hand, does not smell its father, but knows his father quite differently, namely human form. Well then, if we transfer this image to the knowledge of God, the matter will be clear.
"
A. Kuyper, "Dogmatics" Vol. I,"

Basically, the knowledge of God is too great for us, so he must speak and reveal himself in ways our minds can handle. Considering the original audience of the Bible, God spoke to them as they were, and what they can handle, to reveal himself in ways they could understand.
 
It's worth noting that, since Einstein, geocentric and heliocentric models are equally valid, and neither can be proven empirically. Science classes still teach dogmatic heliocentrism for the same reason that they still teach Newtonian physics--convention and simplicity.

As far as coordinate systems or frame of reference, sure. As far as general physics, no, they are not equally valid or almost all the matter in the universe would be moving faster than the speed of light under the one system, and at that point you've broken your entire system and have a whole lot of other problems beside frame of reference to deal with.
 
And let me clarify myself here too, if I may: concerning Genesis 1, where the context clearly is visible creation, it seems to strongly imply that daylight is not the result of the sun, but works and exists independently of it. And in this context I was asking the question. But of course, I am aware the the flat earth movement. But this right here is purely based on exegesis, and therefore I wanted to know how the fathers replied to it.

It seems then that no one here is understanding your question. When you say "Copernican System" everyone is thinking of heliocentricity vs geocentricity. I'm not sure what Genesis 1 has to do with that.

In Genesis 1, God said "Let there be light" and there was light. I have never heard anyone imply that therefore, the light doesn't come from the sun. The source was not the sun on day 1, or day 2, or day 3, but from day 4 onward, that source (for day) has been the sun.

This seems even more clear by verse 14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

The sun is the light that divides the day from the night and I've never heard any hint of anyone thinking anything to the contrary.
 
Genuine question - why do we expect ANE people to have had the same cosmology as scientists in the 21st century? I think we create massive problems through faulty hermeneutics by assuming that they did, or that we have to share the same cosmology that had. That's clearly the problem that some of our Reformed and Puritan forebears had, and I see much resemblance to comments made in debates over biblical interpretation/science today.
 
In Genesis 1, God said "Let there be light" and there was light. I have never heard anyone imply that therefore, the light doesn't come from the sun. The source was not the sun on day 1, or day 2, or day 3, but from day 4 onward, that source (for day) has been the sun.

This seems even more clear by verse 14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

The sun is the light that divides the day from the night and I've never heard any hint of anyone thinking anything to the contrary.

To divide the “day from the night” is to divide the light and darkness that is already there, as is clear from verse 18. Until then there was nothing in the sky, only light and darkness, and this is what these two luminaries were there for: to rule their own sphere (light and darkness), be signs, give light etc., but not to create light and darkness itself. You don’t create two “lights” to divide the day from the night in your sense of the word, then the whole sentence wouldn’t make any sense. Furthermore, why would God do such a thing? Like creating light on day one, and then a few days later giving the sun as the source of light. Did he make a mistake? Is there anything else in Genesis 1 that had to be changed, or did it all stay fixed until today? I mean sure, it’s possible, but is it probable, or reasonable? I don’t think so.

Also, it’s two luminaries, clearly differentiated, and the stars, each one said to give “their own light”.

So to me it sounds like the moon is shining as the sun does, the one at day and the other at night. Both of them have no influence on the light and darkness in which they operate. Like this is the straightforward reading.

And if this is true, then it doesn’t work out on the Copernican model, since the sun gives the daylight there always. That’s why I was asking.
 
Here is a long list of quotes from a geocentric site, ordered by category like theological, scientific, etc. It goes back to the Reformation. It might have what you are looking for. Great site!!!


You might be surprised how many scientists freely admit that both models work and there is ample scientific evidence against Copernicus, but philosophically they find the idea of the earth at the center as unacceptable.

One subject that arises here is the subject of the ether/aether/firmament. It was universally accepted even by non Christians that the ether existed....all the heavenly bodies are in an invisible "something" sort of like fish swimming in water. When Michaelson- Morley and Sagnac performed experiments showing earth at rest, in order to debate them it was necessary to dispense with any ether. So in addition to Copernicus you would need to pursue the doctrine of the firmament.

Another theological doctrine is what happened at the fall. As Logan pointed out above: " As far as general physics, no, they are not equally valid or almost all the matter in the universe would be moving faster than the speed of light under the one system," That observation is correct.

If you look up a guy named Barry Setterfield who did the original research, there is a theory based on every measurement of the speed of light going back 400-500 years, showing a clear parabolic curve of a decreasing speed; going back to the time of the fall in a young earth model it was amazingly faster. Its called CDK for "C" decay. And yes there are scientists all over who spell out how everything fit together at a vastly increased speed of light and all the physical constants. It works, but I forget all the math of it. But anyway, geocentrists reject the speed of light as a limit. I've read stuff the past few years out of atheist labs that particles exceed it anyway, so dont let the speed of light throw you.

But the point is, how different was the world before the fall, including the "fall" of physical constants. Setterfield's theories reject the stars being billions of years away, it is the speed of light that was exponentially faster and the stars are thousands of years away.

If you are strictly looking for theology, unless you find an old dead guy who did not accept the firmament as it was understood back then, once you get to modern science and Michaelson-Morley its either a firmament and geocentricity, or no firmament and helio/Einstein.

Einstein was Time Mag's man of the century for figuring out how to deal with Michaelson-Morley after a couple decades of scientific bewilderment. He did it by saying that while every other form of wavelength ( sound, radar) has velocity measured with adding and subtracting velocity, if the source is in motion, with visible light that no longer applies. Thus relativity. If you accept it, you need to look for old theologians writing about time. Can time itself speed up and slow down? If you go faster does the time you are in shorten? What is time? Is it fixed?

from that link: "...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."- Physicist, Albert Einstein

Read up on relativity. Decide if you can reconcile it with your theology.

The theology of this subject is very much wrapped up in quite a few subjects as you can see. Enjoy the study.
 
This issue is one that I am reconsidering. I am not convinced that the Bible demands belief in geocentrism, but I have a difficult time reconciling heliocentrism with my commitment to Common Sense Realism.
 
He did it by saying that while every other form of wavelength ( sound, radar) has velocity measured with adding and subtracting velocity, if the source is in motion, with visible light that no longer applies.

Lynnie, every time this topic comes up you repeat this. And every time I repeat that this is completely wrong. I work in radar with advanced degrees in electromagnetics! Visible light is a portion of the electomagnetic spectrum and I've yet to see you explain where on the spectrum the transition is to the different behavior you describe (hint: there is no difference whether you are in kilohertz or terahertz).

It's like claiming that sound waves at 1 kHz behave entirely differently than sound waves at 10 kHz. They don't, they are just different frequencies. Visible light is a different frequency than radar waves, but it behaves the same in this regard. Now it's true that as electromagnetic wavelengths get smaller they react with materials differently or the quantum effects increase but the way velocity works and the way Doppler works, is exactly the same. There is no difference in this between visible light and radar waves here. Can we please stop having this conversation every time geocentricity comes up?

Regardless, OP has clarified that he's not talking about geocentricity.
 
Last edited:
They argued about it as men of their specific context and specific level of knowledge would.

e.g., Doolittle when he says we don't feel the earth rotate every 24 hours, so why should we doubt our senses? There was a strange period in history where philosophy was rated so highly, that people didn't even bother to verify their philosophical speculation by empirically testing it, even when it was not very difficult to do so. There is a place for both philosophy and empiricism and neither should be neglected.

These men were no less prone than we are to finding purportedly solid theological reasons for objecting to new findings or concepts. But we should be careful we're finding what Scripture actually does (and does not) teach, rather than what we want it to teach.

In my firm opinion, the geocentrist trying to find Scripture support is trying to make Scripture say more than it actually does.
Excellent point and a very important caution to always keep in mind: all people are all products of their time. Better to recognize it and use that as a filter and a check against whatever we are reading as well as our own presuppositions - in order to benefit from imperfect views.
 
To divide the “day from the night” is to divide the light and darkness that is already there, as is clear from verse 18. Until then there was nothing in the sky, only light and darkness, and this is what these two luminaries were there for: to rule their own sphere (light and darkness), be signs, give light etc., but not to create light and darkness itself. You don’t create two “lights” to divide the day from the night in your sense of the word, then the whole sentence wouldn’t make any sense. Furthermore, why would God do such a thing? Like creating light on day one, and then a few days later giving the sun as the source of light. Did he make a mistake? Is there anything else in Genesis 1 that had to be changed, or did it all stay fixed until today? I mean sure, it’s possible, but is it probable, or reasonable? I don’t think so.

Also, it’s two luminaries, clearly differentiated, and the stars, each one said to give “their own light”.

So to me it sounds like the moon is shining as the sun does, the one at day and the other at night. Both of them have no influence on the light and darkness in which they operate. Like this is the straightforward reading.

And if this is true, then it doesn’t work out on the Copernican model, since the sun gives the daylight there always. That’s why I was asking.

I feel like you're creating a dilemma where none exists. I have never heard anyone having this issue with the passage before. Did you read someone who stated this?
 
There is a thread from about a year ago where I gave a lengthy extract from John Edwards on this subject, which should give you some insight into the problem.

The problem I see with that is that there are so many different ways to sense something. To the man standing on the ground, his common sense is telling him that the earth isn't moving. To the astronaut in space, his common sense is telling him that the earth is moving. To the person traveling in a vehicle at a constant velocity, his sense tells him he isn't moving, while the observer outside insists that he is.

I see I responded to that thread and I was about to type up much the same as I responded then. But I think John Edwards is using a poor argument against Transubstantiation.
 
Lynnie, every time this topic comes up you repeat this. And every time I repeat that this is completely wrong. I work in radar with advanced degrees in electromagnetics! Visible light is a portion of the electomagnetic spectrum and I've yet to see you explain where on the spectrum the transition is to the different behavior you describe (hint: there is no difference whether you are in kilohertz or terahertz).

It's like claiming that sound waves at 1 kHz behave entirely differently than sound waves at 10 kHz. They don't, they are just different frequencies. Visible light is a different frequency than radar waves, but it behaves the same. As electromagnetic wavelengths get smaller they react with materials differently but the way velocity works and the way Doppler works, is exactly the same. There is no difference in this between visible light and radar waves here. Can we please stop having this conversation every year?

Regardless, OP has clarified that he's not talking about geocentricity.
Logan, I know this and its why I reject relativity.

Michaelson- Morley measured the light coming from a distant star during the time the earth was supposedly hurling towards the star, as the earth went around the sun. Then six months later they measured the light from that star when we were on the opposite side of the sun hurling away from the star. The velocity of the light should have changed, adding or subtracting the speed of the earth. It did not.

Ahha moment- edit- the measurement changed, not the actual speed of light, and my communication is bad, yes, you are correct about that.


This is from the page I linked.

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

Enter Einstein, and the velocity of the light will not appear to change, and you don't add and subtract the speed of the earth, because....relativity. This is NOT how an observer is going to measure sound raves or radar on a submarine when the enemy sub is moving.

Relativity departed from all classical wave model physics, for observing visible light. I agree with you- the waves act like all the other EM waves, visible light should show the earth moving towards and away from a distant star because it is a wave on the EM spectrum. But it doesn't.

No, OP is not asking about geocentricity. But he needs to look up the firmament and relativity and time for starters if he wants to ever understand the models, and to understand how theologians for a long time believed in the firmament, fixed time, and probably Newtonian physics.

Logan, please look at the link I posted. Its scientists, not Christian ladies on internet forums. At least understand this subject better.
 
I feel like you're creating a dilemma where none exists. I have never heard anyone having this issue with the passage before. Did you read someone who stated this?

No, I didn't read anyone on that. I remember that before I got converted I started reading the Bible and then, right at the beginning, I couldn't make sense out of the very first chapter of the Bible (not only the problem with the light). Well I switched to the New Testament and all went good from there, but maybe this is the reason the whole thing sticked with me.

But I remember reading somewhere that this was part of ancient Jewish cosmology. But I haven't done any indepth study on that. I read Calvin on that today, since I had his Genesis commentary in front of me and ye, he just says there that from then on the sun was the source of light. So he is with you there, for example, as probably a lot of people are. But to me that doesn't make sense out of the text and context, but instead involves heavy eisegesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top