Puritan Board Senior
When you use the criteria used above:
"If you knew nothing about science, and if you were just reading Genesis 1, would you wonder what Genesis 1 is trying to say? Not at all! It says six days, with "day" meaning "24 hours" (as all other instances of "day" indicate); therefore, YEC is the only exegetical result. All other attempts, no matter how sincere, are ultimately eisegetical."
Then you are without any other options than geocentrism. That is why you would be hard pressed to find anyone throughout church history who held to anything other than geocentrism before Galileo/Copernicus etc.
The usual first text that is pointed to is Joshua's long day
12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
That is the only text to demonstrate geocentrism? It is ambiguous. It allows for several interpretations within it and does not necessitate a belief in geocentrism. Someone reading that could interpret that the sun literally stopped, or that the sun in the sky, according to the observer, appeared to stop moving.
My point is that Genesis 1 is quite clear and straightforward, and others have to insert their meaning into it. I guess I should not have been so stringent as to say we should ignore all science when exegeting (my apologies), but we should make sure not to insert meanings when no true ambiguity exists. We should not allow science to supercede or falsify Scripture, although it can help to clear up ambiguities.
Thanks for pointing out my flaw.
If there was actual ambiguity then why is something other than geocentrism never found in church history until "science" changed its mind?
There is a greater consensus in Church history concerning geocentrism than YEC.
I doubt that.
There is at least as much for both, if not more for the latter, taking into account the entirety of Church history.