Earth - The Center of the Universe?

Yes! I do! It is true!!!! Science cannot show that the earth goes round the sun (though there are some experiments that seem to show the opposite). But scripture is clear. For example, Ecc 1:5 says:

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Every other bible passage talking about the sun's motion ascribes it to exactly that - the sun's motion, NOT the earth's rotation. What Bible verses are there to show anyone living before Copernicus that the Bible REALLY meant "the earth turns" or "the sun APPEARS to arise" etc.?

Go to www.geocentricity.com for more info.

 

P.S. It is interesting that secular scientists often admit that models of the universe with the earth at the centre are "sceince", whereas they do not extend this liberty to creationism. I therefore find it ironic that creationists are often our biggest opponents (N.B. we are creationists too, just consistent creationists: we believe the Bible over the incorrect text books!)

 

Believe it or not, there are a few. There are also groups that still believe the world is flat. And these groups use extracontextual biblical verses to back up their claims. Of course, believing does not make it so.

 

JohnV, Yep and its sitting on turtles, and what does the turtle stand on? That's easy, its turtles all the way down.


Actually, I don't remember who it was but I debated long and hard with someone right on this board that believed the earth was in the center and we perceived things wrong. I tried to explain that if it was true, orbital mechanics would show an awkward figure eight motion among the other planet's orbits, but no matter how hard I tried, he said I wasn't right and argued and argued. I'm not surprised he is a member of the flat-earth society, too.

It is people like this who can easily have their faith shaken if something is proven that goes against their archaic beliefs. Ask yourself this question----how many will have their faith shaken if life (of any level) is found on other planets?

 

It was me.

I argued and argued because you were wrong in asserting that orbital mechanics wouldn't work. It must do because the equations derived from a geocentric point of view are the same as those derived from a heliocentric (actually acentric) point of view. The only difference is that the Coriolis, centrifugal and Euler forces must be considered real rather than ficticious. Geocentrists do not argue that the path that any satellite, etc. takes is different from the path you think it takes - RELATIVE to any particular point. So if a satellite traces out a figure-of-eight pattern relative to the earth, then there is no debate. It does. If it traces out a spehere relative to the sun, there is no debate. It does. What we debate is what, if anything, is actually stationary. However, I've realised arguing is not helpful, since most people will not change their minds, and we can use God's time in a much better way. I am also reasonably convinced that arguing is not Biblical. Therefore I don't plan to do much arguing this time round.

No, I'm not. What are you talking about??? Scripture is plain about the motion of the sun; not the shape of the earth. Besides, such silly statements are exactly the kind of things atheists come out with against creationists.

And how many will have their faith shaken if it is proved that the Bible was invented in the Middle Ages? And how many wil have their faith shaken if it is discovered that Abraham never came from Ur? And how many will have their faith shaken when someone proves that dead people don't rise again????

Don't play pick'n'mix with the Bible.

 

This is a clear example of what happens when you take a bible verse and use it in a manner which was intended by neither the author or the inspirer. The end result is adding to the Bible, which we're clearly forbidden from doing.

THe laws of the universe do not account for a geocentric universe. So, the laws of the universe are wrong, either scriptures are wrong, or the ones interpreting scripture are wrong. The third alternative is the most likely, and history records that in circumstances like these, the third scenario is nearly always the one that is present.

 

This is a clear example of what happens when you take a bible verse and use it in a manner which was intended by neither the author or the inspirer.</font>[/QUOTE]OF COURSE!!! Johnv KNOWS what the author INTENDED, because he KNOWS the earth goes around the sun! Do you care to tell us what Solomon REALLY meant when he wrote Ecc 1:5? Did he REALLY mean the earth is turning???

Even if the text DIDN'T mean to teach the sun's motion, you presumably charge Jesus with the same crime - after all, he used a verse about God's revelation ot Moses to teach there would be a resurrection, which was obviously not the point of the original author.

Just stick with the text, and believe it.

Yes, they do. Many secular scientists realize this as well. You are in the wrong, my friend.

 

You forget that, once, a geocentric model was the norm in secular science, until they realized the model had errors in it.

BTW, I presume that any scientist, acccording to you, that does not share your geocentric view is a "secular scientist"?

Too bad Dr Dino hasn't chimed in on the topic.

 

No, I didn't forget that. Actually, strange you should bring that up because it just shows how science changes. I'm glad I believe the Bible is ultimate truth, not science.

Also, they didn't give up geocentrism because it had errors. They gave up ONE geocentric MODEL (that of Ptolemy) because it had errors. And many then took up ANOTHER geocentric model (that of Tycho). It wasn't the fact of the earth's centrality that was wrong, but the method of getting the orbits right. Also, don't you know that the original sun-centred model was very different from today's? But that doesn't mean you stop believing the earth goes round the sun; you just change the model. An out-of-date geocentric model being wrong doesn't show a modern geocentric model to be wrong. Besides, I don't really care whether the model I believe in is right or wrong (science has a habit of declaring all previous models "wrong") - what I care about is what the Bible says!

No. I meant scientists who weren't (apparently) religious, and certianly weren't persuing their work for the sake of proving a religion. I give the example of Ernst Mach, who taught that the earth-centred and sun-centred views were equally valid. Also Prof Sir Fred Hoyle who said the same thing.

P.S. What has "Dr. Dino" got to do with this???

 

I'm sorry. I just cannot believe that anyone in today's time and age could actually believe that the sun and the planets revolve around the earth. I mean, come on!

If I say, "My wife is an angel," am I saying that she is Gabriel's sister? No, I am using figurite language.

Ecc 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. (ESV)

So, now we are withdrawing back into the Dark Ages, based on this verse?

Look at its context. It is describing the passage of time in contrast to the vanity of men. Ooooh, yeah. I can really see basing science on a description of time.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Even if the text DIDN'T mean to teach the sun's motion, you presumably charge Jesus with the same crime - after all, he used a verse about God's revelation ot Moses to teach there would be a resurrection, which was obviously not the point of the original author.

Jesus is the original author.

 

God is the center of the universe. Everything revolves around Him. Relativity works both ways.

 

I understand where you're coming from, brother, but just stop and think: WHY do you believe the earth moves around the sun? I know we're told "science has proved it", but this is not the whole truth. Actually, modern physics teaches that everything works out the same if we consider the earth to be the centre. Nothing about the dark age views. Like I said, Ernst Mach, who had no axe to grind, made this point very forcefully. In fact, I was reading a secular book on Einstein's General Relativity a couple of years ago that argued we should refine that theory to make it more like what Mach taught!

OK, but anyone since Adam could see that's figurative. The problem is, what reason would anyone before Copernicus have to believe that all the Bible passages talking about the sun moving are only figurative language?

So what? Why does that nullify what it says? In fact, it adds weight to it - the passage is describing how these things just keep going the same. What things keep going the same? Verse 5 talks about the motion of the sun. How can you turn the verse into something about the earth spinning? You can't. Also, verse 7 has proved to be a very accurate picture of the water cycle. Why then can't we believe verse 5?

 

Agreed (I think - though isn't the Holy Ghost the author? The Trinity is confusing!). However, the original intent was obviously not to prove the resurrection to Moses. The original intent was to introduce God. However, the words are still TRUE, and since they IMPLY the ressurection, Jesus is fully justified in using them to prove the ressurection. Equally, the passages about the sun moving are still TRUE, even if teaching the sun's motion wasn't their original purpose (though there ARE some like this). Therefore we must look at what they imply.

The argument "that wasn't what the original author was trying to teach" would render all use of the Bible against any heresy not encountered in the Bible worthless. For example, can you use the Bible to counter the Catholic teaching that we should pray to Mary? But there isn't a single Bible passage whose aim it was to teach that we SHOULDN'T pray to Mary! You see, we must take the truths taught in the Bible, and APPLY them.

 

Luke 20:

27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
32 Last of all the woman died also.
33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.

This is a reference to Exodus 3, whose point is obviously not to prove the resurrection. However, it is still true. Equally, even though some verses about the sun's motion might be be there to tell us the sun moves, they are never-the-less true.

 

No, I know what the author intnended because I have read the entire chapter in context. The verse and chapter were not written or intended to define the motion of celestial bodies. Applying this one verse for that purpose is an error of adding to the bible.

 

1. His intention WAS to talk about the motion of the sun (I, too, have read the context).

2. Even if it wasn't, I refer back to the point of Jesus' statements in Luke 20.

3. Many other verses ascribe motion to the sun, not the earth (e.g. Joshua 10:13)

 

You're simply confusing the biblical authors' uses of what's called "accommodative" language to describe events. Events in the Bible often are written in accommodative or "phenomenal" language (ie., the language used to express phenomena as man sees them). Your abuse of the author's writings is a gross misapplication of scripture.