Featured Geocentricity: What's It Hurt?

Ha ha ha... which adaptation. I’m stuck on the one that has Greer Garson narrating. What diction!

 

Would a theological difference between a heliocentric and geocentric worldview be significant, or just fall under the umbrella of philosophy?

In a geocentric universe, man is the most important thing, placed squarely in the center of the universe by a God who has set the planets and stars into a motion so complex that even His universe is beyond our comprehension. The apparent chaos that we see reflects the reality of the incomprehensible movements.

In a heliocentric universe, mankind is not the center of the universe. God has created the planets and stars and set them into motions that are ordered in a way that is comprehensible to man. Man discovers that appearances are not reality. The sun only appears to move across the sky and planets only appear to travel in irregular motions, but once the truth is perceived, the reality behind what is seen can be understood.

From a theological perspective, are we the center of the universe to an incomprehensible God, or is a God who can be understood to some degree by looking beyond the evidence of our eyes the true center of the universe?

Heliocentric vs Geocentric says something about God.

 

All newspapers without exception are geocentric. They all give information about sunrise and sunset.

 

Geocentricity is a view that places the earth at the center of, and center of importance in, the universe. Heliocentricity is a view that eventually located the sun at a focus of the elliptical planetary orbits in our solar system, not at the center of the universe. The former view remains theologically important and correct, despite SETI, as well as inherently true for earthbound creatures. Phenomenologically, geocentric language generally suits us best, thus the retention of such terms as “sunrise” and “sunset.”

The latter discovery (heliocentricity) reframed scientific understanding and ushered in a host of additional discoveries in physics, etc., some dependent on space exploration, all beneficial for technological advancement (and some for evangelism). Because of its open information directive, NASA has greatly accelerated this advancement. The justly failed resistance to the scientific view of heliocentricity, in which Christians unfortunately played an integral part, should have better informed our interpretive methods, as well as engendered more humility. This is just as true of scientists as it is of theologians. It seems neither have sufficiently learned the lesson. However, the worst marks go to those pseudo-theologians calling themselves atheists, especially when they wrap themselves in the flag of scientific advancement as if it entitles them to pontificate on nonmaterial matters.

 

Sorry, but it seems you have redefined "geocentricity" into irrelevence and then claimed that you see no difference between using the sun as an arbitrary point of reference and the earth as an arbitrary point of reference.

I have seen attempts to create a model where the sun and planets orbit the earth and the complexity of the movements needed to duplicate earth based observations staggers the imagination. That is true "geocentricity".

As you have redefined it, I can only say ... "No comment."

 

Geocentrism was at one time, the secular science of our day. And so, as is the custom of the Church, many theologians tried to read it into biblical cosmology (just like they do today with millions of years).

One thing this may have influenced is the church's concept of heaven. In a geocentric world, heaven revolves around the earth, which is odd, because heaven is God's throne and earth his footstool. This has likely caused the Church over the centuries to spiritualize heaven, so that it's no longer part of the created world Genesis 1 describes. IOWs, many don't view heaven as place, but rather a spiritual state or dimension (whatever that means). That way, heaven is no longer revolving around earth. That doesn't seem to follow the biblical model, but is more palatable to the geocentric mind.

More modern theologians are seeming to warm up to heaven being an actual place (Randy Alcorn for instance). Could be a minor thing, but false assumptions about the world that are read into Scripture, do impact theology.

 

I was thinking about this as well, but in a different direction. The idea of Heaven revolving around us seems rather egocentric. Cosmologists may be doing us a favor in getting that out of our minds. But I doubt that the earliest believers had that view, but rather God over all, above all. We do not know that his dwelling is a part of our creation, certainly not from the creation accounts, do we?

What is harder to imagine is the proximity of God to us, the ability to be nearer to us than we can even be to each other. The Israelites had God leading them during the exodus, speaking with Moses, and dwelling with them in the tabernacle and then the temple. But the opening of the holy of holies when the veil was ripped from top to bottom… Hmmm. Heaven as a place sounds biblical (and bodiless angels not). But the physics of it and the new creation, including us, well that is yet a mystery. It is all too easy to read into Scripture what is not correct.

 

It's difficult to tie a direct link, but it's a logical inference. Had the ancients known about the vastness of the cosmos, It's hard to imagine this wouldn't have influenced their concepts of heaven and angels. I also believe angels are corporeal, but this has not been a strong historical belief. How could so many angels fit in such a small solid dome sky? Thinking in this area may also have been influenced by false cosmologies.

 

You were close until you changed your position in the last paragraph. You had it right the first time. God called the firmament heaven. There is a one-one correspondence. There is no, heaven, then the firmament of the heaven. Firmament means expanse and this expanse is the heavens. "God called the expanse, heaven."

And it has to be an expanse, because clouds are said to be in the heavens, and clouds are easily inferred as objects moving in a three dimensional expanse.

This is what make it impossible to conflate the firmament of Genesis with ancient solid dome ideas. The firmament = heaven and the clouds, which are easily seen in a 3D expanse are said to be in the heavens. No solid dome possible.

And you're right about the waters, and the waters are actually still up there, according to a Psalmist. In fact, scientists are finding mass bodies of water in outspace with the Hubble. Many articles about these. Trillions of gallons.

And finally, the book of Genesis predates ANE culture. Moses wrote it, but only as editor. Every event in Genesis was before he was born, and he likely used written records to compile the narrative. The Genesis account will reflect antediluvian culture, not ANE culture, and the antediluvians might have been much more advanced than the people of Moses' day.

 

"And God called the expanse, heaven." That's biblical, from the Genesis to Revelation.

Wow, you lost me here. Genesis 1:2 is describing the unformed, unfilled earth. Where do you see heaven in this verse?

No, this too, is biblical. Writing existed as far back as we find civilizations. Writing existed before Moses, before Abraham, even according to secular archeologists. In fact the word "book" is mentioned all that way back in Genesis chapter 5. "This is the book of the generations of Adam."

And why would you be troubled by Moses using historical records to compile a historical document? This is very common for historical accounts in the bible. Henry Morris pointed out,

“Visions and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).​

 

BTW, something I've always wondered about. If heaven is not a place, why did Jesus ascend into the sky? If it was just a dimensional change, which didn't he just disappear before their very eyes, like in a Star Trek transporter?

I think this might be a point Alcorn made, if I remember correctly, been a while since I read his book. But it does make you wonder if ancient cosmologies have caused us to think wrongly about certain realities.