Earth - The Center of the Universe?

[TC]

It's all about perception. When an airplane takes off and I look at a building, it looks like it is moving away from me. Now, is it really moving away from me? No. I am the one moving away from the building. Same thing with the earth. It is moving. Yet it appears as the sun is moving to us.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by TC:
Same thing with the earth. It is moving. Yet it appears as the sun is moving to us.

Trouble is, God said it's the sun that's moving. And no, John, it's not phenomenal language. What reason do you have for stating that when the bible says the sun moves, it doesn't REALLY mean the sun moves? Ecc 1:5 is clear: not only does the sun rise and go down, it even hurries back to where it came up! How can the sun be "hurrying" if it isn't moving? If it's only the earth that's moving? Why don't you believe what the Bible says???

 

[Brett]

The sun does move - just not around the Earth.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Brett:
The sun does move - just not around the Earth.

OK - but the problem is that Ecc 1:5 specifically requires the sun to move around the earth! Also, look at Joshua 10:

12 Then 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.
13 And 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.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

If the sun suddenly stopped its motion about the centre of the galaxy, and its motion with the galaxy away from all the other galaxies (i.e. the motion which is ascibed to it in the non-geocentric model), then a mere lengthening of the day would not ensue. No! It would mean the earth would shoot millions of miles away from the sun and freeze! (because of course in that model, the earth is considered moving). No, if the textbook picture of the earth and solar system is correct, then the earth would have to stop spinning. But that's not what the text says. It says the sun stood still. And the only way that could have the effect the Bible says it did is if the sun travels about the earth every day.

 

[Phillip]

Hi Bartholomew, yep we had some good ones back then. You and I never did settle that one. (or I never could convince you that I was right haha). I used up all of my ammunition back when.

You other guys prove him wrong; he's got this down pat. Good Luck!

Good to talk to you Bartholomew. I've been hanging around the "versions debate".

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Gentlemen - I submit to you we can indeed accept the findings of modern science regarding the moving of the earth and go ahead and accept the scripture as well. In so doing, we tacitly acknowledge that this particular part of the scripture is not to be interpreted literally. The reason we do this is not to be found in scripture. It is found in our certainty that the earth actually moves.

We merely need to admit that is what we do, when we find some archaic science in the Bible.

 

[Trotter]

Like creation, Paul?

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Philip,

Nice talking with you again. What have you been doing round there in the Bible version forum???!!

Oh, and Paul, science doesn't say we know the earth moves. All it can say is we know the earth moves relative to the universe as a whole. I agree. Ernst Mach agreed. Many scientific papers by secular scientists agree. The question, though, is what is the universe doing? We can't know. But God can.

Finally, Trotter, you hit the nail on the head. The same arguments Christians use against geocentricity are the same ones they use against creationism. The two stand or fall together. To me, the Bible is "All or Nothing". I take "all".

 

[A.J.Armitage]

Bartholomew;

Geocentricity is not science. I don't mean it's wrong, or bad science. I mean it isn't science at all because it adds nothing. I understand your point about relativity entirely. You could declare that an elevator is stationary and the building (indeed the planet) goes up and down around it, and nobody notices because they "ride" the Earth. And from the perspective of physics it's the same either way. But precisely because it's the same either way, why bother? Why is this the hill to die on?

 

[Aki]

well, people. let's look at Solomon's resources too, shall we? we simply cannot say, this is what he said. we should ask ourselves, what did Solomon used to study the motion of the sun? only one answer - his eyes! therefore the context when Solomon said that the sun moves around the earth is the human eye. and it is true. using our eyes, we see the sun move around the earth.

while the telescope and modern science has proven that it is the earth that moves around the sun, which is correct, that does not make Solomon's assertion wrong. in interpreting what Solomon, said, use your eyes, not the telescope. in that way the sun is the one moving around the earth. sure it is the other way around, but the issue is not who really turns on who, but on what does the eye see moving around who.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
To me, the Bible is "All or Nothing". I take "all".

Then you must believe Jesus was a liar -->

John 11:11-14 -- This He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep." The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,"

Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping when he was dead, and His disciples took his words literally and they were wrong.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by A.J.Armitage:
I understand your point about relativity entirely. You could declare that an elevator is stationary and the building (indeed the planet) goes up and down around it, and nobody notices because they "ride" the Earth. And from the perspective of physics it's the same either way. But precisely because it's the same either way, why bother? Why is this the hill to die on?

Well, why not ask the others posting on this thread? If it works out the same, whatever we take as stationary, why do they keep telling me I'm wrong?

Now, if it works out the same either way, then that must mean one of two things:

1. There is no absolute standard for measuring motion, and therefore we cannot say anything "moves" in an absolute sense - it all depends on your point of view, and your point of view is as good as anyone else's; or

2. There is an absolute point of view - something CAN be said to move in an absolute sense - but physics can't tell us what it is. Only someone outside the universe and looking in would be able to tell us that.

I'll go towards number two. God says the sun moves. I belive it. I don't understand why everyone else has a problem with this.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Aki:
while the telescope and modern science has proven that it is the earth that moves around the sun, which is correct, that does not make Solomon's assertion wrong. in interpreting what Solomon, said, use your eyes, not the telescope. in that way the sun is the one moving around the earth. sure it is the other way around, but the issue is not who really turns on who, but on what does the eye see moving around who.

1. But Aki, you seem to forget that God wrote Ecclesiastes (and Joshua, and all the other Bible books that mention the sun moving around the earth) - and God knows for sure what is going on.
2. Also, notice that no telescope can prove what is moving. Telescopes show us distant stars travelling around us every day. The whole debate is simply whether we ascribe this motion to the earth (spinning under the stars), or the stars themselves (spinning around the earth). Both points of view are identical as far as astronomy, physics and geometry are concerned - all that changes is our philosophical/theological view of what we want to consider motionless.
3. Finally, your argument - that Ecc 1:5 is true because it simply APPEARS to be true - is very dangerous ground. Where else will we apply this argument? Perhaps creation wasn't really in six days - it just appeared to be in six days. Perhaps Jesus didn't really turn water into wine - it just appeared like that. Perhaps Jesus didn't really die - he just appeared to die (as the Muslims claim). Perhaps Jesus didn't really come back to life - he just appeared to come back to life. Et cetera...

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Alcott:
Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping when he was dead, and His disciples took his words literally and they were wrong.

Of course we shouldn't take every Bible passage literally. However, comparing scripture with scripture we can see that Jesus meant he was dead (though would rise again). The Bible often uses "sleep" for a euthemism for death - precisely because we will rise again. This is easily seen from what the Bible teaches. However, there is not one hint anywhere in the Bible that "the sun rises" is a euthemism for anything, and shouldn't be taken literally. Indeed, what reason would anyone living before Copernicus have for thinking the passage meant anything other than what it said? Is Copernicus a prophet whom we must follow to see how to properly interpret scripture?

Like I said in my first post, check out www.geocentricity.com for more info.

 

[Deacon]

The original thread that discussed this topic is quite old.
(Can I post a non-Baptist opinion here? )

Originally posted by Galileo (April 1614)
"As to philosophers, if they are true philosophers (that is, lovers of truth), they should not be irritated: but finding out that they have been mistaken, they must thank whoever shows them the truth. And if their opinion is able to stand up, they will have cause to be proud and not angry. Nor should theologians be irritated: for finding such an opinion false, they might freely prohibit it, or discovering it to be true they should be glad that others have opened the road to the discovery of the true sense of the Bible, and have kept them from rushing into a grave predicament by condemning a true proposition.
As to rendering the Bible false, that is not and never will be the intention of Catholic astronomers such as I am: rather, our opinion is that the Scriptures accord perfectly with demonstrated physical truth."...

"It may be that we will have difficutlies in expounding the Scriptures, and so on: but this is through our ignorance, and not because there really are, or can be, insuperable difficulties in bringing them into accordance with demonstrated truth."

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
There is no absolute standard for measuring motion, and therefore we cannot say anything "moves" in an absolute sense - it all depends on your point of view, and your point of view is as good as anyone else's

Galileo responds regarding relativity of motion:

[refering to a detractors argument using the motion af a ship] "The mistake about the apparent motion of the beach and stability of the ship is known to us after we have frequently stood on the beach and observed the motion of the boat, as well as in the boat to observe the beach. ...Yet looking only from these two bodies, it would always appear that the one we were on stood still, just to a man who saw only the boat and the water, the water would always seem to run and the boat to stand still....It would be better to compare two ships, of which the one we are on will absolutely seem to stand still whenever we can make no other comparision than between the two ships.(Italics added)

Quoted from Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo Translated by Stillman Drake (1957).

Rob

 

[Pete Richert]

I agree with Bartholomew that motion is only relative. It would be impossible to prove whether the sun circles us or we circle the sun. We can prove, however, that the other planets circle the sun (in eliptical orbit), and therefor only indirectly us if the sun circles us.

Where the diea of the earth spinning will stand or fall is whether the speed of light truly is the constant of the universe. For those of you who don't know, physics believe the speed of light is the only constant, time and space bend to keep the speed of light constant. I'm sure few on this board, including myself who has studied advanced physics, understand why this is. If the speed of light is contant then stars can not be rotating around the earth as they would be traveling orders and orders of magnitute greater then the speed of light. The usual objection I hear from those such as Bartholomew is either that things can travel faster then the speed of light (which misunderstands the laws of physics) or that the laws of physics change as we move futher from earth, allowing for the speed of light to increase as we move further from the earth.

I don't find the biblical evidence convincing. I wouldn't even say I am not taking it literary, as far as I am concerned the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Bartholomew has proved his case to well that motion is relative so it doesn't make these statements false in the slighest if the earth rotates.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Galileo (April 1614)

Man, I bet that guys got one reeeeeeeeeally low member number.

 

[A.J.Armitage]

Only someone outside the universe and looking in would be able to tell us that.

If the universe were configured such that it made sense to even talk about being outside looking in, it would have an edge or border, and this border would be unmoving and thus the frame of reference.

Pete Richert;

Regardless of whether you think the Earth is unmoving in any absolute sense, those bodies do go faster than light with reference to the Earth. So if it's a difficulty for geocentricity, it's a difficulty for everything. I still don't see why this amounts to anything but a conceptual game.

 

[Pete Richert]

Regardless of whether you think the Earth is unmoving in any absolute sense, those bodies do go faster than light with reference to the Earth.

That's exactly the point. That is why it can be proved, while standing on the earth, that it indeed rotates (given the speed of light postulate).

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
1. But Aki, you seem to forget that God wrote Ecclesiastes...and God knows for sure what is going on.
2. Also, notice that no telescope can prove what is moving.
3. Finally, your argument - that Ecc 1:5 is true because it simply APPEARS to be true - is very dangerous ground.

Hello Bartholomew,

first, the sun rising and setting does not prove the sun moves around the earth nor vice versa. it simply means that the earth rotates in its own axis. it is impossible for the sun to rise and set or move around the earth, nor vice versa, in just 24 hours. thus, with the sun rising and setting, it is due to the earth rotating in its own axis, and not which moves around what. but while this is true, we still use the phrase "the sun will rise and set at exactly..."

as for the question of what moves around what, modern scince has indeed proven that the earth is the one going around the sun.