I’ve just discovered a very interesting group of people. Apparently, they believe that not only does the Earth not revolve around the Sun but that the entire Universe revolves around the Earth. As crazy as this may sound, some of these people are well educated. This is from one of their websites, The Association for Bible Astonomy:
To hear tell, geocentrism, the ancient doctrine that the earth is fixed motionless at
the center of the universe, died over four centuries ago. At that time Nicolaus Copernicus , a Polish canon who dabbled in astrology, claimed that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the universe. His idea is known as heliocentrism. It took a hundred years for heliocentrism to become the dominant opinion, and it did so with a complete lack of evidence in its favor.Yet the victory of heliocentrism has been less than total. Over the years geocentrism has had its spokesmen…Astronomers, pastors, and educators in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church maintained the geocentric truths well into the twentieth century. They, with the reformers such as Luther, saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible.
The second of these two concerns: how the Bible’s authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to “up” and “down;” through the question of just what the earth was “orbiting” the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13:
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….
…In other words, either God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar. The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God’s or man’s? This is brought home again and again by humanists, such as the twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell and astronomer Ivan King, who point to the church’s abandonment of geocentricity as having “freed” man from the ancient God-centered outlook on life to the modern man-centered outlook. For complete documentation of the Biblical significance of geocentricity see G. D. Bouw’s book, Geocentricity
The folks over at Static Earth (who provided the above photograph) don’t beat around the bush:
There is NO proof that the Earth rotates on an “axis” daily and orbits the sun annually.
None.
Not many Biblical literalists, however, think that there is much merit to this idea. Wikipedia says:
Many scholars such as those at the Institute for Creation Research would argue that interpreting the descriptions of heavenly/spacial events as phenomenological rather than strictly scientific or literal is important. For one, it shows that science and the Bible are not contradictory. The Bible describes things as man describes them (sunrises, sunsets, etc.). Also, it shows that the Bible is very careful to avoid specifics that would make no sense to the majority of readers throughout the majority of history. While the descriptions may not be strictly scientific, they are not erroneous or inaccurate. The Bible describes the heavens from man’s perspective, and not in intricate detail. This is in great contradistinction to Apocryphal and Koranic descriptions of cosmology, which are very specific and demonstrably inaccurate (e.g. 2 Esdras 6:42, 1 Enoch 72, Koran 41:9-12). Finally, they would argue that it is necessary to interpret the seemingly geocentric passages as phenomenological because it is easily demonstrable that the Bible describes other heavenly events in similar language (the moon’s light, stars falling from heaven, etc.).
But do the Geocentrists make a good point when they argue that;
reasoning that “explains away” such verses with arguments such as “the Bible is not a science book” or the Bible is “contextual” leads to the appearance of the scriptures containing lies or inaccuracies. They see this sort of reasoning as very dangerous, and associate it with the perceived recent rapid disintegration of all Bible-based religion and, by extension, society.
Most of you already know that I do not believe in Creationism. But a lot of pretty smart people do. If we want to justify our science by what the Bible has to say, then isn’t it unreasonable to completely disregard the Geocentrist position? Or, if you agree with the statement from the Institute for Creation Research that “the Bible describes the heavens from man’s perspective, and not in intricate detail”, then why wouldn’t that also apply to other areas that the Bible addresses?
( If you think that I am using an extreme example to prove my point, then think again. Even the Geocentrists hesitate to associate with the Flat Earth folks.)
Hey, that’s funny. I used to hang out at the Institute for Creation Research, and even bought a bunch of Henry Morris books at a whopping 40% discount (some sales I rang up myself–I’ve had an ethical dilemma about the books ever since). I even led tours of the museum, on occassion (for some reason, I had my badge taken away–I think I offended a patron, but maybe I read too much into the whole thing).
With s few exceptions the Post Hole Diggers (a euphamism for PhD holders) at ICR are first rate scientists–and the museum director at the time (John ______) was not a dyed-in-the-wool six dayer.
Anyway, the Bible also has verses such as “He hangs the earth on nothing . . .” which obviously mean that whether the text is really ancient, or less ancient (like post exhilic) that some of those old Jews certainly knew a thing or two about the nature of the universe–and whereever they are probably have conversations with Copernicus and Galileo on the true nature of things.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be a kick in the pants if the geocentric folks were right, and we were at the center of a giant cosmic merry-go-round.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 18, 2008
at 9:08 pm
No wonder I’m so dizzy. You actually worked at ICR? You continue to surprise me.
By: Christian Beyer on December 18, 2008
at 9:17 pm
I didn’t say I worked there–I volunteered for about 6 months in 1993 and 1994. I went through a few tours in training.
A bunch of folks from our church group in California went there on a field trip (sort of). I was so offended for not at least being invited, that I was determined to make a mini-career out of the angst I felt. Anyway, I went down there and become semi-involved in their ministry.
In addition to the tours, I also ran the cash register of the museum book shop (like two times) until one of the PhD’s daughters was made store keeper.
John (what is his last name) ran the museum. He was more of a conservative type, but I think he was more open minded than the general tenor of the set up.
Anyway, things heated up and I even went to a
“brown-bag” session (a lunchtime lecture) given by one of the PhD folks, but the locals (the employees) looked aghast when I actually took them up on the invitation to attend a
brown bag session (the lecture was on the Flood’s Catastrophic Effect and the Laying of Fossils in the Sedementary Layers). I didn’t bring a lunch, just one of my typically jumbled spiral notebooks (I probably ate at McDonald’s in Santee, even though it was on the left side of the road that leads to ICR).
I also considered attending their summer institutes, and inquired about their graduate school. Yes, I was all out for ICR.
Then came the day all of the Friedlanders went to the museum. We vacuumed, we washed windows, we smiled that famous Friedlander smile.
After the tour, John the curator asked me for my badge, something he had never done before. I took that to mean I was fired from my volunteer duties.
So, we headed out east from the San Diego area, and went home through the mountains of San Diego county, and enjoyed an odd scene that was alpine beauty and heavy snow on one side of the car, and desert ruggedness on the other.
Anyway, the following August (17 months later) after that I led my own church folks on a tour of the museum. It was a high-water-mark day in my convoluted days as a teacher/pseudo-scholar. I really thought things were rolling along–but it wasn’t two months later I left my teaching job and life changed drastically.
John the Curator intentionally left literal time frames from the interpretive texts in the museum. However, in these articles (I can’t remember what they were called) they gave out (and of which I took a whole load without paying) the PhD guys ranged from typical six day creation stuff to such whacko ideas as denying Plate Tectonics as an explanation for earthquakes.
The last I heard of ICR? Marty had some copies of their devotional, Days of Praise.
All of it was an experience I will never forget, but really was founded in personal spite.
I probably told you this story, but you never allow a body to get a word in edgewise.
And I still feel a guilt sting about buying the books at a 40%discount.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 18, 2008
at 10:05 pm
Because if you give a body an edge it’s take a book. But seriously, good story. You never told me this before. Neat stuff.
And you think that they are fairly scholarly out there?
By: Christian Beyer on December 18, 2008
at 10:38 pm
Well, many opinions exist on this issue.
At the time, many challenged Dr. Duane Gish’s proposals on transition species, especially Harvard’s Guru of Evolution, Stephen Gould. In fact Gould wrote an essay in which he blasts Gish (for Gish’s condescending essay about Gould).
(Gish was also a Harvard-ite).
Gish lost some of his credibility for his unwillingness to admit that discoveries that supported an older earth could be right (when I made an emphatic point, John the Curator agreed, and he said I was “preaching to the choir” in that regard, especially the age of the earth).
At the time I was hanging around, John Racca (really his name) boasted that ICR had 9 PhD level scientists on board, and they were always looking for more.
I honestly don’t know the credibility in their respective fields, although Henry Morris was actually a geologic hydrologist engineer, and not a paleontologist or archaeology. Morris’s assertions range from speculative to almost ethereal. He says, for example, that human life is a direct training ground for eternal vocations, and that John not only saw visions of future events, he saw the events himself. On the other hand, he wrote lucid and interesting commentaries on Psalms and Job. On the third hand, his trying to make Galileo and Newton into evangelicals (”Men of Science, Men of God”) is a logical long jump, if ever one existed.
His son, John, seems to be more of a hardliner than even Henry. His credibility can be challenged (and has been challenged) especially in his Noah’s Ark quest. I wrote him a letter, and he would not even acknowledge another such search, by John Warwick Montgomery (which was called, “Noah’s Ark, I Touched It”)
Ken Hamm? Watch some of his videos and don’t LOL–but he left ICR and started his own outfit in Kentucky (Creation Research Associates) which is way more creation-slathered than the Santee crowd (although I heard he left ICR because Morris and company are inflexible about Jesus’s Geneology in Matthew).
I haven’t heard of bias against evangelicals in another field, from a professor from my correspondence courses. The guy said that as hard is it is to land a full-time job in religious studies, the odds lengthen if they find out one is an evangelical.
As for the other professors, as I said they held earned Dr. degrees in their respective fields. I believe the fact that they were after non-canonical conclusions in their research may have been sore spots. Does this make them without credibility? No. Credibility in a field should not rest in adherence to the canon, but to what is discovered and replicated through research.
Anyway, the state of California made the undergrad college, Christian Heritage, drop ICR’s Graduate school, so the college could issue state teaching credentials. Again, this does not reduce the credibility (and in fact may cause an increase in some eyes).
Oh, you got me going!
Ah, the Halcyon days. I would rush down in my little Izuzu pick-up. I loved ignoring my young family and speeding down Interstate 15 at 85 MPH just to get to ICR, zooming through the back country of San Diego County.
Anyway, that’s about all for now.
Gee, this is like a personal conversation. Maybe one of these days I’ll stop by YIT and see ya’all.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 18, 2008
at 11:32 pm
Or was is John Razca?
Look him up on the web. You might be entertained.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 18, 2008
at 11:33 pm
And all of this just to one-up and spite my buddies who didn’t envite me along on their big trip to Santee (home of ICR).
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 18, 2008
at 11:34 pm
Weren’t you the one who chided someone else for their ’stream of consciousness’ style of writing?
By: Christian Beyer on December 19, 2008
at 12:52 pm
Why do we question the omnipotence of God? Did he create a temporal universe and neglect to impose the adequate laws of physics to maintain it? If He chooses to work outside those laws to prove his omnipotence are these not the times of miracles? Are not the terms we use to explain these miracles relevant to the limits of our understanding at the time of their writing?
Hail that burned in Egypt must have been a meteor shower. The six days of creation can only be figured in a length of a time as we can define it. Heaven and hell have to be spiritual places. The Bible has to be taken as a totally literal account. All these ideas are from the imaginations of men while truth is found only in the Spiritual teachings of a Spiritual God. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” James 1:5
Keep God as the center of your universe and you will have little question as to what is the truth.
Just my two cents.
By: netprophet on December 19, 2008
at 2:26 pm
“There is NO proof that the Earth rotates on an “axis” daily and orbits the sun annually.
None.”
Wow. The heavens must be shaped like a cylinder, and planet Earth is suspended inside that revolving cylinder, motionless except for seasonal tilting left to right and back, to explain why there is no sunset or no sunrise at certain seasons at the poles.
Do they have proof on that? None.
By: rodj on December 19, 2008
at 3:10 pm
Stream of Consciousness? Sheesh.
I want comments to continue the conversation on Revolution and Creation, not a criticism on my writing. If I want that, I’ll consult one of my Sr. colleagues from TU.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 19, 2008
at 5:05 pm
Touchy! Just joshin’.
Well, what do you think? Is there something to this Geocentric thing? Any merit?
By: Christian Beyer on December 19, 2008
at 5:12 pm
Honestly, I doubt the geocentrism crowd has any merit.
However, changing the location or angle of a camera during the production of a movie changes the entire perspective, does it not?
With that thought, here are a few pustules (I mean postulates) on perspective, given by a member of the English department, not the physics department.
Think about how the moon appears to move when you are driving in a car–the moon is not moving as fast as your car, yet look how fast it appears to move.
Another analogy could be from flying in an airplane. The plane I was flying in appeared to be moving slowly, because no landmark existed from which to draw a perspective–until another plane went by, about 10,000 feet lower. That plane, a small airliner, appeared to be flying at a much higher rate of speed than our plane. Yet, they were probably flying at around the same speed. At the same time, cars one can see from the air, appear to move at a very slow rate–much slower than 60 or 70 miles an hour.
So, perhaps the earth can appear to be moving, when in fact it is static. Of course, this is not provable.
On the other hand, space flight, such as geosynchronous satellites are based on predictable movements of the earth, at least its rotations–and seasons are based on the movements of the earth around the sun.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 19, 2008
at 6:58 pm
So they say….
Hey Rodj. Welcome. You’re right. But they don’t need proof – they have scripture verses.BTW – you look so young to be so well spoken.
Net – I getcha, but I don’t getcha. Are you saying that these guys might be on to something?
By: Christian Beyer on December 20, 2008
at 8:51 am
Okay, Chris, you have any Geocentric leanings?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 20, 2008
at 3:03 pm
So I should be killed for eating shrimp?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 20, 2008
at 3:04 pm
Really I’ve never heard about this Earth not turning on an axis, I mean that there are educated minds who believe in this idea of a [flat] motionless earth. Honest, it made me think seriously for some moment, I mean, to think again about it, for I could be missing something. But no, in the end I have this ideas:
1. That those people should be barred from using the word pole/polar as in North Pole, South Pole, Polar Bear etc. The word must have been invented by man at the time that he thought he was sure that the earth was round and it was turning on an axis.
2. Those men of Science, members of the cult, should provide an estimate of the speed of the visible bodies in the cosmos as they make the revolution in 24 hours. [well, I don't see the stars and the galaxies flying with trails of hot energy as they must be circling the Earth xxxx faster than light.]
About the scriptures, the bible itself warns against possible ignorance… Oh yeah, people have rights to be ignorant, nothing one can do.
By: rodj on December 20, 2008
at 3:33 pm
I guess what I’m saying Chris, is that the Bible seems to be more important to the Religious communities as a law-book to control their congregations than an inspirational text of the historical relationship between God and His people. I believe Jesus saw it that way in consideration of the Pharisaic bastardization of the Jewish faith and constantly used it to prove His Messianic identity while condemning the interpretational defacing of God’s spiritual messages and turning them into official mandates and ambiguous religious rhetoric.
When scientific and religious doctrines collide, truth is usually immersed in a sea of hypocrisy and left to wallow in the speculative imaginations of pompous ignoramuses who endeavor to destroy the omnipotence of God. The Bible isn’t the sanctified writings of God, it is at best the human interpretation of traditional ideologies written to teach and edify the masses regarding the ways God historically dealt with His people. That is one reason the prophets declared that the “Laws” and teachings of God would be spiritually written on the hearts of His people and not mere temporal inklings.
This is my opinion anyway. What has God written on your heart?
By: netprophet on December 20, 2008
at 3:55 pm
You wrote, “the Bible seems to be more important to the Religious communities as a law-book to control their congregations than an inspirational text of the historical relationship between God and His people.”
Absolutely right. Almost an object of worship, rather than a chronicle of God’s work among Israel and the church.
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on December 20, 2008
at 6:15 pm
Geocentrism is just as valid as heliocentrism. It isn’t quite as simple as a fixed star with the world revolving around it or a fixed world with the universe revolving around us. Any point is merely a frame of reference to begin with, a simplification of the reality. As with much of the universe, things really are just a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface.
By: hoverfrog on December 25, 2008
at 8:36 pm
Can you expound a little bit on that Hov? I’m not sure that what you are talking about is what these folks (geocentrists) have in mind. It sounds like you are talking about a matter of spatial perspective, which wouldn’t require theories concerning something like a semi-solid “aether” surrounding the earth to which the stars are affixed.
By: Christian Beyer on December 26, 2008
at 12:22 am
Sure, on the matter of a luminescent ether there is an elegant and quite famous experiment by Michelson-Morley that disproves it’s existence quite thoroughly. The Geocentric (Ptolemaic) view that the Earth is the centre of the universe is patently false. Measurement of the speeds radio waves reaching Earth from other stars shows a Doppler shift inconsistent with us being at the centre. The motion of planets in our solar system clearly shows that they revolve around the nearest star in an elliptical orbit.
However the geocentric view is still valid when calculating motion from Earth or in relation to Earth just as a heliocentric view is valid when calculating motion or relative position in relation to the sun such as the motion of planets, asteroids and comets in the solar system.
Both these views are inaccurate though. Our sun is no more a fixed point in space that the Earth is but moves relative to the central point of the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way moves relative to the larger universe as well. It’s all a matter of perspective and where you’re standing. The Earth surely isn’t flat but the bit I’m standing on sure looks flat to me.
By: hoverfrog on December 26, 2008
at 7:09 pm