Geocentricity: What's It Hurt?

[Calminian]

....You're disputing Mosaic authorship

No I'm affirming Mosaic authorship. Moses didn't directly experience any of the events he wrote about. He needed revelation from some source, just as Luke or any other writer. Genesis is the product of Moses.

If anything of it existed, it had to have been taken aboard the Ark, and then preserved throughout the generations that descended from the eight souls that survived the flood, specifically to Ur of the Chaldees, where Abraham was educated, and called out, and Egypt, where Moses was educated and called out.

I agree. That's exactly what happened.

And there is not one shred of evidence....

There is. There is textual evidence that writings from Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, and Shem all wrote and passed down documents that were used by Moses.

But to supposed antediluvian cultural influence in the books of Moses is presumption of a diabolical nature

LOL! You think it's diabolical that Adam, Noah and Shem were influenced by antediluvian culture?

 

[Aaron]

LOL! You think it's diabolical that Adam, Noah and Shem were influenced by antediluvian culture?

That's not what I said, [Name calling edited].

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

I have Gleason L. Archer's book on my shelf. He very specifically points out among others, the Aramaisms, and Egyptian and Akkadian influences in the Pentateuch.

So show me the antediluvianisms. Chapter and verse, and tell me how you know they are specifically antediluvian.

 

[Calminian]

That's not what I said, [Name calling edited].

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

I have Gleason L. Archer's book on my shelf. He very specifically points out among others, the Aramaisms, and Egyptian and Akkadian influences in the Pentateuch.

So show me the antediluvianisms. Chapter and verse, and tell me how you know they are specifically antediluvian.

The Pentateuch as a whole, yes. But Genesis is pre-Israel until the latter chapters. Surely you've read the book? Do you not realize Genesis is the history of the origins of mankind? Do you not agree Adam lived a couple thousand years before Moses?

Unless you subscribe to the direct dictation theory, Moses consulted records to write Genesis.

 

[Calminian]

So here's a challenge to you. I contend the Genesis does not have a hint of ancient false cosmologies. If you disagree, name passage in Scripture where you think a false cosmology is endorsed and let's talk about it.

 

[Aaron]

The Pentateuch as a whole, yes. But Genesis is pre-Israel until the latter chapters. Surely you've read the book? Do you not realize Genesis is the history of the origins of mankind? Do you not agree Adam lived a couple thousand years before Moses?

I'll take that to mean that you cannot identify the 'antediluvianisms' in the text.

You said, "And finally, the book of Genesis predates ANE culture. Moses wrote it, but only as editor."
Meaning He collected and arranged texts authored by others. You are disputing the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.

Unless you subscribe to the direct dictation theory, Moses consulted records to write Genesis.

Who was the witness to the events described in Genesis 1?

 

[Aaron]

So here's a challenge to you. I contend the Genesis does not have a hint of ancient false cosmologies. If you disagree, name passage in Scripture where you think a false cosmology is endorsed and let's talk about it.

I don't think the Bible anywhere presents a false cosmology, and it is indisputably geocentric.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Today, it is a model where the earth is the frame of reference.

This is philosophy.

Today, heliocentricity is a model where the sun is the frame of reference. 600 years ago, it was about the solar system, but today it is a model where our sun is assumed to be motionless in the center of a certain coordinate system.

Relativity is the prevailing thought of the day. It says all motion is relative since, according to the assumption of the Cosmological Principle, the universe has no edge or center. That means we can assume any body to be motionless (even the earth) and the observations could be explained. It also means that all coordinate systems (whether the earth or sun is assumed to be motionless in the center, or even Jupiter or Mars) are equal.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/covariance.html



So, when Jesus said His Father causes His sun to rise, do you think He knew it was really the earth moving?

What technology depends on a classical heliocentric view?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but you're saying that she needs to be informed by the consensus of science.

Then be informed. Cosmologists say there is no more truth value in one model over another. That means scientifically, heliocentricity is no more true than geocentricity. The preference is a philosophical preference only,

With a vast, expanding universe where general relativity is important, centricity is a calculative construct, not a scientific theory, as your linked article explains. This does not diminish the importance of the paradigm shifts scientists have gone through to get there, nor negate their importance. Mankind benefits from the advancements—the former (benefits) depend on the latter (advancements). Not only that, but subsequent advancements depend on the previous. Suggesting the development of classical heliocentricity has not benefited mankind technologically would be ignoring history, and this should be understood and emphasized (from the outset would have been better). Saying a modern notion of heliocentricity has not benefited mankind technologically may be saying practically nothing. Per your link, it might be slightly more preferred over a comparable geocentricity, even in making relativistic calculations.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

So, when Jesus said His Father causes His sun to rise, do you think He knew it was really the earth moving?

Why not? But having known would not have helped communicate his theological message, as his audience did not know. Using phenomenological language need not be a problem. It does not prove a person thinks wrongly. To share the Gospel with a primitive people, I would not worry about wrong understandings of the cosmos just because they’re wrong. However, I should want to know their understanding to share comprehensibly.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but you're saying that she needs to be informed by the consensus of science.

If the church cannot interpret the Bible where it touches on science, then, yes, science can certainly inform the church. But scientism and science are not the same. Even scientists and science are not the same. Scientists can misinterpret scientific data as certainly as believers can misinterpret Bible verses.

The church is not the repository of truth. Jesus is the Truth, and the Head of His Church. God’s Word is truth, and we live by it, or not. God’s Word corrects us, not we God’s Word. There were those of the church inspired to record God’s Word. None are with us today.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Like that the knowledge of heliocentricity offers no relief to the suffering of mankind, nor any enrichment to his peace and prosperity, so a geocentric view would offer no impedence to relief or enrichment.

The knowledge of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has other sources, and the implications of heliocentricity or geocentricity are otherwise and beneficial only to philosophers and apologists.

Basically, it's useful to the observations of astronomers to test theories.

I grant that. But how does the knowledge of black holes and quasars help us? Only in the understanding of our place in the cosmos, and that is why I said heliocentricity is useful only to philosophers and apologists.

I agree that cosmology itself is not aimed at advancing technology for the benefit of mankind. But its dependence on and drive to achieve technological advances, nonetheless do benefit us greatly.

A geocentric view of the universe makes sense theologically and even cosmologically in the philosophical sense. It does not conflict with scientific discoveries, as long as we don’t insist on making it into science. It isn’t necessary and will only cause problems. Save the arguments for discussions where cosmologists drift over into the philosophical realm and begin making claims not supportable except by wishful thinking, e.g., multiverses, origin by chance, self-creation, etc.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree that cosmology itself is not aimed at advancing technology for the benefit of mankind. But its dependence on and drive to achieve technological advances, nonetheless do benefit us greatly.

A geocentric view of the universe makes sense theologically and even cosmologically in the philosophical sense. It does not conflict with scientific discoveries, as long as we don’t insist on making it into science. It isn’t necessary and will only cause problems. Save the arguments for discussions where cosmologists drift over into the philosophical realm and begin making claims not supportable except by wishful thinking, e.g., multiverses, origin by chance, self-creation, etc.

A few things cosmology can tell us today:

1. The universe is billions of light years across, yet the necessary size for a planet like ours.
2. The universe had a definite beginning with physics too unique to be a mere roll of the dice.
3. Our planet is ideally situated and suited for even very advanced life to survive and thrive.
4. Our planet is ideally situated to observe most of the rest of the universe.
5. Our solar system, and especially our planet, is too unique to be a mere roll of the dice.

What cosmology cannot tell us is where the “dice” came from, who rigged the roll, and why.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Geocentricity: the arguments go round in circles.

 

[Aaron]

With a vast, expanding universe where general relativity is important, centricity is a calculative construct

and mechanical with no less truth value than any other construct. In other words, according to Relativity, it is no more true to say the earth goes round the sun than it is to say the sun goes round the earth.

not a scientific theory, as your linked article explains.

The theories assume the universe has no center or edge. That doesn't mean they're saying the universe is infinite. They're not saying that. They're saying our 3d space is like the 2d surface of a balloon. No center, no edge. If we draw dots on the balloon, then inflate it, we would observe all the dots moving away from each other at the same rate. If we sent an observer to any point in the universe, he would see the same thing that we see on earth, all the galaxies (outside his local neighborhood) moving away from his platform at the same rate. And he could explain them, not mathematically only, but mechanically as well.

This assumption can't be tested. To test it we have to send an observer to a distant galaxy for a look-see, so it's the preferred assumption. If they assume an edge or a center, then the observations of astronomers puts us observers in or very near the center of the universe. That's not acceptable, because that would imply design and purpose.

What that means is this: whether or not the earth moves is a philosophical construct, not a scientific one. It cannot be proven with observation or experiment.

Suggesting the development of classical heliocentricity has not benefited mankind technologically would be ignoring history,

Can you list some of the benefits?

and this should be understood and emphasized (from the outset would have been better). Saying a modern notion of heliocentricity has not benefited mankind technologically may be saying practically nothing.

Exactly. Meaning that depending upon one's philosophical preference, the geocentric model might be the true one. Meaning, Luther and Calvin were right. The earth doesn't move.

Per your link, it might be slightly more preferred over a comparable geocentricity, even in making relativistic calculations.

Only on local scale. On the universal scale, it doesn't.

 

[Aaron]

Why not?

If the geocentric model is not true, and Christ knew that, then either He asserted something that isn't true, or He affirmed Relativity and revealed God's preferred coordinate system.

But having known would not have helped communicate his theological message, as his audience did not know.

Is that what Jesus did, give space to fallacious notions to make theological points? Was that His approach with the Sadducees?

And why do we think the ancients would have more trouble being told the earth moves than with a message that reportedly "turned the world upside down?"

 

[Aaron]

A few things cosmology can tell us today:

1. The universe is billions of light years across, yet the necessary size for a planet like ours.
2. The universe had a definite beginning with physics too unique to be a mere roll of the dice.
3. Our planet is ideally situated and suited for even very advanced life to survive and thrive.
4. Our planet is ideally situated to observe most of the rest of the universe.
5. Our solar system, and especially our planet, is too unique to be a mere roll of the dice.

What cosmology cannot tell us is where the “dice” came from, who rigged the roll, and why.

You have to be more specific when you say cosmology, because Geocentrism is a cosmology.

The prevailing cosmology, The Big Bang, has a number of problems. Most notable is the need for theoretical dark matter and dark energy to prop it up. But assuming the universe has a center and edge, the observations of astronomers can be explained without the need of dark matter or energy, but the earth has to be in, or somewhere very near the center.

 

[Aaron]

FYI: when I started this thread, I was wholly convinced of Relativity. Now, I do not believe geocentricity to be certainly fallacious.

No model is a scientific certainty. I see no compelling reason to explain the geocentrism of the Bible in relative terms.

 

[Calminian]

I'll take that to mean that you cannot identify the 'antediluvianisms' in the text.

You said, "And finally, the book of Genesis predates ANE culture. Moses wrote it, but only as editor."
Meaning He collected and arranged texts authored by others. You are disputing the Mosaic authorship of Genesis.

Who was the witness to the events described in Genesis 1?

If that's true, then no matter what you deny Mosaic authorship. If he dictated direct from God, by your own logic, you're denying Mosaic authorship.

Virtually all believe Moses received the Genesis account from somewhere.

 

[Calminian]

If the geocentric model is not true, and Christ knew that, then either He asserted something that isn't true, or He affirmed Relativity and revealed God's preferred coordinate system.

Is that what Jesus did, give space to fallacious notions to make theological points? Was that His approach with the Sadducees?

And why do we think the ancients would have more trouble being told the earth moves than with a message that reportedly "turned the world upside down?"

You're dodging the question, but that's okay.

I've challenged you to give me one passage that affirms a false ancient cosmology. Can you do that?

 

[Calminian]

I think one thing this thread has done is prove geocentrism does do some harm.

 

[Calminian]

I'll take that to mean that you cannot identify the 'antediluvianisms' in the text....

I'm not following your logic. Are you denying the flood also?