Featured Geocentricity: What's It Hurt?

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.

I agree. That's exactly what happened.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Geocentricity: the arguments go round in circles.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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