Sven

Worldtraveller asked me to take this to a new thread. Let's rehash the relevant points from The fundamentalist mind on evolution.

In post #130, I argued that since the bible says that the Earth does not move and modern physics says that a non-moving Earth is entirely consistent with General Relativity, YECs (especially buckshot23) should be Geocentrists if they want to be consistent in their beliefs.

As support for the General Relativity claim, I later linked to this discussion in S&S.

Buckshot later came back and asked where the bible teaches Geocentrism. I reminded him in the following post that we had this discussion at least twice before, but he asked to refresh "our" memories. Since I've nothing better to do right know, I'll do so (although I find it a bit odd that he pretends to have forgotten this).

First, please note that I did not claim that the bible teaches Geocentrism - this is a claim that buckshot put into my mouth. Here's my original claim again:

The bible says in several places that the Earth does not move (using these words or more "poetic" ones)

So buckshot starts with a strawman of my claims. Not that good as a start.

Second, here are some verses:
(Psa 93:1 NRSV) … He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
(NIV) [...] The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
(KJV) [...] the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

(1 Sam 2:8 NRSV) For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.
(NIV) For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.
(KJV) [...]for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
[my commentary: Things on pillars don't move/the world is "set" upon something]


So we see that my original claim was 100% correct.
The question then becomes - does this suggest geocentricity?

I argue that it does - because if one did not know about the modern view of the solar system, the only conclusion one can draw from these verses is that it's not the Earth which moves, but the sun.

Of course one can interpret these verses metaphorically - one can interpret every verse metaphorically. But this isn't the point. The point is: Why should one interpret them metaphorically?

This "why" question can even be looked at from two points of view:
1) Not knowing the modern view of the solar system
2) Knowing that general relativity allows for a geocentristic world view.

This is the question creationists dodge.

As far as I see it, the only reason why (most) YECs don't adopt Geocentrism is because the view of the Earth going round the sun is that most people simply don't know about general relativity.

If I'm wrong, I'm awaiting creationists to give their other reasons.

Worldtraveller

I think the simple answer to your question, Sven, is 'yes, if they were consistent, YECs would also be geocentrists.'

The truth is, if you are expecting consistency from YECers after all this time, ya might as well give up.

Very few YECers, or other 'biblical literalists' take the entire bible literally, regardless of their assertions to the contrary. About the only one I can think of who might be fairly consistent is Fred Phelps, and most of the other religionists think he a whacko (and he is!).

A 'true xian' doesn't eat shrimp, and checks to make sure none of his clothes have 'mixed fivers' etc., otherwise, it becomes a clear case of picking and choosing which parts of the bible one is folowing, and that is clearly not a bibilical literalist.

Cheers,
Lane

Sven

I don't expect it - I'm just interested in the excuses.



I see that this answer was possibly unnecessary because I simply agree with you... and even use the same means :wave:

Sven

Alternatively to my questions in the OP, any creationist perhaps likes to explain what exactly is the difference between the "arguments" here and the ones at a YEC website of his choice.

Jack the Bodiless

Of course, they should also be flat-Earthers, and they should believe that the sky is a solid dome with the stars as little lights attached to it.

Sven

Nice, I can make a substantiate answer instead of a simple *bump* for buckshot (and others)

I think this is different: Science can be interpreted to be on the side of Geocentrism. It certainly can not be interpreted to be on the side of a flat Earth.

Only on the side of an expanding Earth.

Oolon Colluphid

Which side? Top or bottom?

Me, I think we live on Discworld...

Magus55

Some YEC's are geocentrists. There are a couple I've been debating with at Christian Forums. I ask this question sometimes to YECs. If they so strongly hold to a literal Genesis, 6,000 year old Earth, and global flood - why don't they believe the Earth is geocentric or flat? They say those verses are metaphoric, but Genesis is a literal historical account.

Sven

Yes, I know. Adds even more relevance to my question.

Exactly. Although the bible is not that clear on a flat Earth, it says in plain words that it does not move. Brushing this off as metaphorical is IHMO simply inconsistent.

buckshot23

I indeed did miss this thread as my internet connection is down. I can check in only at the library of my school from time to time. So lets see if the bible does teach a geocentric view or not.
:huh:
Are you admitting that the bible doesn't teach a geocentric view of cosmology? Of course you aren't. That is the whole point. I accurately portrayed your views.

As always when looking at verses such as this we should look at the greater context.
First Psalm 93
First let's try and take all of this literally. According to Sven's logic this passage also teaches that the seas have voices that they can be"lift"ed up. This to me, just for starters is a good indication that this is poetry and not to be taken literally. Second what do you think the purpose of this verse is? To teach cosmology? No it is to teach that God has alot of power.
My commentary: You are wrong.

Let's look at the context.
First this is a prayer by Hannah and not general teaching. Secondly trying to take all of this literally one would have to accept that this verse also teaches that God is a literal rock. Thirdly what is the point of this verse? To teach cosmology? Obviously not.
Yes taken completely out of context.

I find it amusing that skeptics who charge that creationists use out of context quotes do the very same thing and in talking about the bible.
nope

Are those verses teaching anything at all? Not really especially not cosmology.
For the above reasons.
When the "pillars" of your argument are based upon out of context quotes I see no reason to dodge anything.
Or that the bible doesn't actually teach a geocentric view of the universe. Maybe thats why.:huh:

In conclusion any planetarium one visits is based upon a "geocentric" view of the universe. It is the point of reference as the earth that is widely used in everyday life. However that isn't good enough for some skeptics. Sunrises should be renamed to "earth rotating into position to view the sun"s. :huh: Why not allow this type of leeway to the bible?