The earth is the center of creation!

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Travelsong, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Those who believe otherwise are elevating science over God, for Scripture confirms this truth:

    Ecclesiastes 1:4-5
    One generation passeth away, and another Generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
    The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

    Psalm 93:1
    The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

    Psalm 104:5
    Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

    Joshua 10:12-14
    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.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.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.

    Copernicus is a heathen liar who wishes to ignore Scripture claiming evidence shows that the earth revolves around the sun! God is not a liar! The Bible speaks truth about our world, not some uppity "scientist" with some fandangled contraption made to look into the heavens when all he had to do was look to the Bible! Even the greatest spiritual leaders of our time agree:

     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    My daughter thinks she is the center of the universe. [​IMG]

    Rob
     
  3. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is everyone who doesn't go for geocentricity a heathen liar also?
     
  4. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    C'mon, where are all you YEC's to back me up? Isn't the plain reading of Scripture sufficient to settle this issue? Just because 500 years have passed and we've experienced all of these technilogical advancements which supposedly reveal a different position of the earth than Scripture reveals, doesn't make it so! God Obviously created the universe with the appearance that the earth is not at the center in order to test our faith.Either that or we are simply interpreting the data wrong.Anyone have a better scientific explanation that will put the earth right back into it's correct Biblical position?
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Travelsong makes an excellent point. The same demand for literally interpreting the Bible to exclude evolution also would appear to exclude modern cosmology.

    Perhaps we should move away from literal interpretation of Genesis as a means of judging science?
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    There's always the option of finding out what the Bible is meaning in its original language and not trying to subvert that meaning by trying to treat the English word choices as though they were the original language...
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean the origional doesn't say that the Earth can't be moved? But that would mean that all the Bibles we have now are wrong.

    Are you sure about that?
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    A suitable reinterpretation can make the scriptures say anything. Then the scriptures become incabable of judging us, because we have learned to make them say anything anyway.

    We all know that many claim to interpret scripture literally and come to conflicting conclusions on mere doctrine. But objective study of the scriptures does come to a consensus. Unfortunately, the objective study of what scripture literally says was already known to Luthor and Calvin and the catholics. They were not failures as interpreters of scripture.
     
  9. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Me doth smelleth a troll!

    But the subsequent comments about literalism and the Bible make an excellent point!

    [​IMG]
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Copernicus was a Roman Catholic, so yes he was a heathen, so was Galilei.
    Johannes Keppler who backed him up was an orthodox Calvinist, so he was practically a satanist (he looked the part as well and he was an astrologer and his mom was tried for witchcraft). [​IMG]
     
  11. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The point is simple. A plain text reading of Scripture wherever it relates to the interaction of the sun and earth confirms what is initially seen when one simply looks out the window: The sun revolves around the earth. YEC's can fight it all they want but the same exact theological arguments they present against an old earth can be applied to a heliocentric cosmology.

    1) We are distorting what is made evident by a plain text reading of Scripture.

    2) We are elevating science over God and making Him to be a liar.

    If one examines the contoversy surrounding the Copernican model of the solar system in the 16th century, one will find exactly the same arguments made by the great spiritual leaders of that time.I think an explanation is in order. Why are YEC's inconsistent in their interpretation of Scripture with respect to the age of the earth and the position of the earth? I mean could it possibly be that the evidence for a heliocentric solar sysyem became so overwhelming that the church finally had to recognize that the Bible wasn't making a scientific claim?I'm just going out on a limb there, maybe someone could clarify for me?
     
  12. ChurchBoy

    ChurchBoy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    If one uses the earth as the frame of reference then the sun does orbit the earth, right?
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is possible in the theory of relativity as per Einstein to adopt any point of view as being the stationary point around which everything else moves, revolves, etc., including the earth. Couple of caveats about that process:

    - the theory of relativity is very explicit to say that there is no one, unique point that can have this done for it. The minute you say to someone else, say an person standing on the Moon, you are wrong to say I am moving, then you have violated the spirit of relativity. They are NOT wrong.

    - Contemplating the full range of dynamical behavior - watching faucault pendulems slowly rotate, watching the earth force water to swirl one way only down the drains, finding one must periodically repoint distant planetary probes to keep the antenna following an apparantly sun orbiting earth - involves postulating strange, varying, universe filling psuedo gravitational fields that make these affects occur. The ultimate viewpoint that is actually feasible for us to contemplate in detail is rather that we are moving after all.
     
  14. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The literalists are silent about this issue (aside from Helen, who seems to assert away the obvious, instead of offering an explanation).

    Hm...Does one have to accept a geocentric earth, lest they corrupt the Gospel? Are will some of you hardliners admit that maybe literal *isn't* the way the *entire* bible was meant to be taken?
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Actually, in my view, this has very little to do with the use of literal interpretational methods.
    The language of the Bible when it refers to natural things is phenomenal, meaning it relates to appearances.

    It’s similar to saying, “I awoke at sunrise”; Sure, we know the sun doesn’t really move around the earth, but even now we use this expression because it’s a phenomena we all experience or can relate to.

    In addition to this, in many cases we see that the Bible speaks in normal conversational speech patterns.

    When we study N.T. Greek it’s ”Koine” Greek, rather than the Classical Greek. Koine Greek is a dialect that was spoken by the common man. Many parts (not all parts) of the Bible are written in the popular language form of the day, the marketplace language or the language of the common people.

    It would be improper for me to tell a heart patient that they had ‘a spiral fracture in the diagonal branch of their left anterior descending coronary artery resulting in prolonged ischemia and an infarction of the anterio-lateral wall of their myocardium’; I’d tell them they had a heart attack. I use the common, popular language.

    Interpreting all of these forms of speech falls within literal methods of interpretation.
    Exactly how this relates to “Divine inspiration” should probably be argued in another forum.

    Rob
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first three citations were from poetic books and are surrounded by other imagery that demonstrates by context that the wording is not literal. For instance, the sea raising its voice would not be taken literal by anyone at any time.

    We cannot possibly interpret the mechanics involved in the last passage if indeed we believe the account at all. There is no allegorical value to this event. But to the point, a science book might say that the sun sets in the west. Every day the local weather gives the time for sunrise and sunset. These are figurative descriptions of real events.

    I am not sure what brand of OEC Travelsong is but I have stated before that the actual time elapsed for the first two days, humanly speaking, is undefined (without the sun and moon) and God is not limited by our concept of time. The only evidence for how long the first two days were comes from the context of the following 5 days.


    Interpretting scripture requires that we look at the context. A literal approach to scripture does not mean that one does not recognize any non-literal language. We simply reject the arbitrary act of assigning the label "allegory" where neither context, declaration, nor cross reference bear it out.
     
  17. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    John Calvin and Martin Luther would have agreed.So the next logical questions are...

    How was it that the church went from accepting the literal presentation of the earth as stationary and a sun which revolves around it to what most everyone believes today? You are putting the cart before the horse when you speak about proper interpretation because you have already arrived at the conclusion that the earth revolves around the sun, and within the framework of that knowledge you now see it is necessary to interpret the corresponding Scripture as allegorical. So now I ask again: What facilitated the transition from a Biblical literalist view of the solar system to a non-literalist view?
     
  18. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    TravelSong, the idea of the earth as stationary was from the Greeks! So was geocentricity!

    Please don't blame the Bible.

    Those who were leading the RC church through the Middle Ages especially simply adopted what current 'science' declared was so and then found the Bible verses they could interpret to support it.

    But the Bible never says the earth is the center (except in God's care for its inhabitants), nor does it say the earth is stationary. Here is a part of a Bible word study I did for someone else on a forum years ago:

    =============

    REGARDING PILLARS

    1 Samuel 2:8 --

    NIV --
    He raises the poor from the dust
    and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
    he seats them with princes
    and has them inherit a throne of honor.

    For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's;
    upon them he has set the world.



    KJV --
    He raiseth up the poor out of the dust and liftest up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

    The word translated "foundations" in the NIV and "pillars" in the KJV is masuq. It is used only twice. The second time the NIV translates it as "stood" in 1 Samuel 14:5 -- One cliff stood to the north toward Micmash, the other to the south, toward Geba.

    The KJV translates that verse as -- The forefront of the one was situated northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah.

    According to the Strongs, the word masuq/i] means something narrow, which the KJV translators then decided would be like a column or pillar. However this might be a case of God's Word being way ahead of science, for the rocky crust of the earth is indeed narrow. It is also a foundation and we are situated upon it.

    And, actually, the Bible does NOT say, in the Hebrew, that the earth is immoveable upon foundations, the way several of you (many of you?) imply. Masuq, the verb in question is not the normal word used for "foundation" either. It is a word whose primary root, tsuwq, means "compress, oppress, or distress." It has a the connotation of being confined. In the full word, as used ONLY TWICE in the Bible, it has the meaning of being forced into a narrow place, or constrained. It can also be used for "to straighten" or "to pour out" as in smelting metal.

    So what we have is the indication in the verses in question NOT of the earth being immoveable on physical pillars or a foundation, but of a sense of opposition and constraint. The earth is being held in constraint by the Lord until such time as HE decides all is finished. It will not be moved or destroyed until that time.
     
  19. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I'm not even sure what kind of OEC I am. I do know that the earth is incredibly old, there is just far too much evidence to support it.All it takes is an objective layman to see that.As far as common ancestry goes, I don't know where I stand.I think the evidence is pretty convincing, but I have a hard time with the idea of Adam and Eve not being the very first humans created.I am theologically compelled to believe in Adam as a literal historical figure simply because the his story is integral to the transmission of sin, a type of Christ etc. etc. I'll get back to you on that one.
     
  20. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129

Share This Page

Loading...