Geocentricity: What's It Hurt?

[Aaron]

Whatever.

 

[Aaron]

I know it's fallacious, but dang if I can think of any technological or medical advance that would have been stunted by it.

Yep. Still at a loss, except that I now understand that Relativity has placed the heliocentric and geocentric models on equal footing. There is no more truth value in one over the other.

No one really knows scientifically that the earth does not occupy the center point of the mass of the universe. That means there is no compulsion to reject Luther's or Calvin's interpretations of the Scriptures in regard to the motion of the earth.

Theologically, this earth was created for Christ. It was on this earth that Christ performed the work that merited His heavenly title. It is to this earth He will return. It is upon this earth that the stars were created to give their light. According to the Scriptures the earth definitely occupies the center of God's purposes. It seems natural that we would occupy the center of the cosmological stage.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Little Drummer Boy: Who has he hurt?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

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

 

[atpollard]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

 

[Aaron]

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

Definitely philosophy.

In a geocentric universe, man is the most important thing,

Maybe THE Man, Christ Jesus, but not you and me. We're told the angels of heaven desire to look into the things that Jesus did while upon this earth. Heaven is centered on the work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary, on the surface of this earth.

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.

But they're not incomprehensible from a geocentric point of view.

I think I should clarify something. The geocentric model isn't saying that the sun and planets orbit the earth. It might have meant that in the days of Galileo. But a geocentric model today says the entire universe is rotating, and the earth occupies the center of mass. A heliocentric model puts the sun at the center of the universe, which is just as ludicrous according to the assumptions of the Cosmological Principle, which assumes the universe has neither edge nor center. Relativity says we can pick any point in the universe, assume it to be the center, and the observations can be explained according to the laws of physics.

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.

Here you seem to place more truth value in a heliocentric model. It's the physicists that say one is as good as the other from the viewpoint of Relativity. The math doesn't work out any easier, but even if it did, easy math is preference, and not evidence of truth in a model.

Heliocentric vs Geocentric says something about God.

Exactly.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I know it's fallacious, but dang if I can think of any technological or medical advance that would have been stunted by it.

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.

 

[Aaron]

Geocentricity is a view that places the earth at the center of,

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

and center of importance in, the universe.

This is philosophy.

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.

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

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.”

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

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

What technology depends on a classical heliocentric view?

(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.

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,

 

[atpollard]

The geocentric model isn't saying that the sun and planets orbit the earth. It might have meant that in the days of Galileo. But a geocentric model today says the entire universe is rotating, and the earth occupies the center of mass.

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."

 

[Aaron]

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."

It makes no sense to talk about classical geocentrism. It doesn't consider everything that is really known today. I'm not redefining it. I'm only saying what modern physicists are saying. According to Relativity all coordinate systems are equal, and any one body can be assumed to be the motionless one, and the laws of physics as they are known today could explain the observations.

Since the argument for several hundred years concerned the sun and the earth, one can say the sun is stationary, and the earth moves around it (or is moved, rather), or that the earth is stationary and the sun is moved around it with equal authority and equal support from the laws of physics.

The earth may be in motion. It may be stationary. Science can't say. Scientists say it is in motion, because to say otherwise would mean that the universe has a center, and we occupy that center. That would further imply design and purpose.

That's my point.

 

[Calminian]

I know it's fallacious, but dang if I can think of any technological or medical advance that would have been stunted by it.

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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[Aaron]

The heavens of Creation are not the eternal heaven of God's throne. What is revealed is that there was 'the deep' which was a gargantuan body of water. Then God created an expanse in the midst of the waters. In that expanse He placed the sun, moon and stars. He called that expanse, Heaven.

According to Genesis 1, there are waters above the expanse, and waters below it. Then God gathered the waters below the expanse into one place and caused dry land to appear, and the dry land He called, Earth, and the gathered waters He called, Seas.

What is rotating in the geocentric model is not God's throne Heaven, but the firmament heaven.
God's throne Heaven, as you put it, is not part of creation. It doesn't occupy space. It's too big.

 

[Calminian]

The heavens of Creation are not the eternal heaven of God's throne. What is revealed is that there was 'the deep' which was a gargantuan body of water. Then God created an expanse in the midst of the waters. In that expanse He placed the sun, moon and stars. He called that expanse, Heaven.

According to Genesis 1, there are waters above the expanse, and waters below it. Then God gathered the waters below the expanse into one place and caused dry land to appear, and the dry land He called, Earth, and the gathered waters He called, Seas.

What is rotating in the geocentric model is not God's throne Heaven, but the firmament heaven.
God's throne Heaven, as you put it, is not part of creation. It doesn't occupy space. It's too big.

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

The word 'heaven' is used interchangeably to describe the space between the ground and the edge of the universe as well as the realm of spirits, which has no location in 3D space. The notion that the throne of God has a location in 3D space is superstitious and somewhat pagan. The Mormons speak of Kolob which is a star in space somewhere near the throne of God.

But Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit of God moved upon the face, or surface, of the deep. It's quite impossible to imagine that realm, because it's outside of Creation. There is no physical dimension, no time, no place. But if we were going to call it something, we'd call it heaven. It's impossible to diagram, so it's fallacious to think of this heaven as a place existing on the "outside" of Creation as if we could walk into it if we could travel to the edge of the universe.

The appeal to the supposed existence of a record of antediluvian culture that exists or existed apart from God's revelation to Moses is somewhat troubling, and is also something common to cults and paganism. Even more troubling is your inclusion of what you imagine of that culture in your hermeneutic.

 

[Calminian]

The word 'heaven' is used interchangeably to describe the space between the ground and the edge of the universe as well as the realm of spirits, which has no location in 3D space. The notion that the throne of God has a location in 3D space is superstitious and somewhat pagan. The Mormons speak of Kolob which is a star in space somewhere near the throne of God.

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

But Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit of God moved upon the face, or surface, of the deep. It's quite impossible to imagine that realm, because it's outside of Creation. There is no physical dimension, no time, no place. But if we were going to call it something, we'd call it heaven. It's impossible to diagram, so it's fallacious to think of this heaven as a place existing on the "outside" of Creation as if we could walk into it if we could travel to the edge of the universe.

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

The appeal to the supposed existence of a record of antediluvian culture that exists or existed apart from God's revelation to Moses is somewhat troubling, and is also something common to cults and paganism. Even more troubling is your inclusion of what you imagine of that culture in your hermeneutic.

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).​

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[Aaron]

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

I see God's spirit, outside of 3d space, which has yet to be formed. What would you call that 'place?'

It's really very simple.

 

[Aaron]

No, this too, is biblical. Writing existed as far back as we find civilizations.

So?

Writing existed before Moses, before Abraham, even according to secular archeologists.

That's not the question.

In fact the word "book" is mentioned all that way back in Genesis chapter 5. "This is the book of the generations of Adam."

Not the point in dispute.

You're disputing Mosaic authorship, based solely upon your presumption and imagination of a culture and world which has been most wholly and irreversibly destroyed. 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.

And there is not one shred of evidence. Now there is lot of occultism that cites wisdom supposedly from the antediluvian world, and I have no doubt the demons know it well.

But to supposed antediluvian cultural influence in the books of Moses is presumption of a diabolical nature. What do you know of it that you can point out? In any words of the narrative concerning the story of Noah: what device, what idiom, what style is specifically antediluvian? And how do you know?

And why would you be troubled by Moses using historical records to compile a historical document?

I'm not. I'm sure he knew the history and geography of Egypt well.
[/QUOTE]