From what I gather, this has always been thematically true, but from recent experiences, perhaps it is physically true as well. The Earth may indeed be at the center of the known Universe. As such I will share a few videos I have gleaned from YouTube. I will start with these three. My view from the California Academy of Sciences has convinced me.
A scriptural exploration of Geocentricity
- Thread starter Kaironaut
- Start date
I confess that I do not know if Earth or the sun is the center. I do know that as time passes and science progresses new discoveries are made. It was always thought that the Brownain movement was erratic but now some suggest there is a pattern. I read recently where science has claimed to havre discovered the weight of the universe. How can that be when its actual size is unknown . Is the universe finite or infinite ? What shape is the universe ? There are as many questions as there are theories. Since humanity is not omniscient I do not think we can know.
A scriptural exploration of geocentricity (a long discredited scientific doctrine)?
Isn't this an intellectually problematic position to hold?
If I'm not mistaken, the presupposition of such a position is that Scripture is scientifically infallible, and so if a Bible writer believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, that must be taken literally as a factual statement. It follows from this that a Christian apologist must defend the biblical writers' 'scientific' viewpoints (or worldview as a whole, if you include other empirically disproven views held by those in Bible times). And as far as I can tell, those videos are meant to do just that—to defend geocentricity, an empirically disproven and hence discarded view of the universe. The assumption, again, if I'm not mistaken, is that such an exercise is a defense of the faith.
I for one think that this apologetic exercise does more harm than good.
It misses the point of scripture entirely to suppose that it—scripture—could be summoned to defend any scientific view, premodern, modern or postmodern. That is simply not what scripture is for!
Whatever the function of scripture is in the church, it's certainly not for vetting scientific theories or for information on scientific topics.
Isn't this an intellectually problematic position to hold?
If I'm not mistaken, the presupposition of such a position is that Scripture is scientifically infallible, and so if a Bible writer believed that the earth was the centre of the universe, that must be taken literally as a factual statement. It follows from this that a Christian apologist must defend the biblical writers' 'scientific' viewpoints (or worldview as a whole, if you include other empirically disproven views held by those in Bible times). And as far as I can tell, those videos are meant to do just that—to defend geocentricity, an empirically disproven and hence discarded view of the universe. The assumption, again, if I'm not mistaken, is that such an exercise is a defense of the faith.
I for one think that this apologetic exercise does more harm than good.
It misses the point of scripture entirely to suppose that it—scripture—could be summoned to defend any scientific view, premodern, modern or postmodern. That is simply not what scripture is for!
Whatever the function of scripture is in the church, it's certainly not for vetting scientific theories or for information on scientific topics.
Last edited:
Exactly. I deeply appreciate this nuanced reply. I deeply desire to be challenged, and not blindly affirmed or disaffirmed. I don’t really care much about the geocentric or whatever-centric the approach is. God could arrange the cosmos however He wants, and I don’t really have any reason to object, unless such method or result impugn on the character of God, e.g. show him a malicious bully, etc. To be fair, God actually commended Job for challenging and being forthright with Him.
Now in the subject of Science, if I recall correctly, it is a method employed to recognize patterns in the created order and if possible understand those patterns to arrive at truth, so as judge other things properly. However, I am aware that science, or Natural Philosophy, as it was once called, typically can establish correlation, which opens the “possibility” or at most “extreme probability” of causation. There are isolated instances where some things are proven positively, but those are relatively rare compared to above. However, complete lack of correlation definitely establishes the lack of causation. In this sense, science is more an apophatic/negative(more certain of things that are not than things that are) epistemology(way of knowing). I believe this is due to the need exhaustive evidence, which is rarely reached due to the limitations of current tools, including the mental toolkit.
On the other hand, Scripture also has been abused in the past to “justify” whatever anyone wants to affirm. This is usually accomplished by taking things out of context. I guess this touches tangentially with you can take the fish out of the ocean, but not the ocean out of the fish. This is an example of methodological reductionism, a sort of simplification designed to narrow the scope so we can understand it at a smaller chunk. However this often leads to truths that take the object out of context. You may take the wheel out of a car for analysis, but you still have to put it back to its peg to drive it - a similar step is often neglected in many discussions.
Regarding the topic, I opened the topic with the word “explore” on it. I didn’t say it is absolutely definitive. When you explore, you don’t know what is out there, but as a limited being, with limited knowledge, you can’t go to a destination without knowing where you are, or at least supposing about where you are. Neither can you explore without having a preconceived notion or idea. In the scientific sense, nothing can be proven, except the negative, as described earlier. And Geocentricity is a positive statement. It may still fall as new data comes along.
Now scripturally, since this is not a scientific claim at this point, it has been a theme of Scripture that Earth is the primary stage of major events, a battleground, even. It is a treasure, promised as inheritance to God’s heirs.
Now I’m not too sure if it’s empirically disproven. However, geometrically/graphically/visually speaking, the visible matter is arranged in concentric spheres around the earth - such a pattern disproves the claim of isotropy/homogeneity as claimed in the mainstream. In 1 of the videos Temo Groppi even says that it there is inhomogeneity in the arrangement of the stars and galaxies. The Michaelson-Morley experiment seems to yield a null result even decades after. Nonetheless, it knocks off a checkpoint against the/a special place in the universe, earth or otherwise, due to this pattern.
Now as for apologetics, as you claim, it may be more reasonable to use science to support apologetics than the other way around. You suspect dishonesty when it flows the other way. Temo argues that casting doubts on the biblical claims, empirical, or ontological has a profound impact on the believability/credibility of the rest of scripture. Although doubt is indeed an invitation from God, it can be weaponized against belief in God. Geocentricity is a watershed moment in both science and religion, preceding evolution, and perhaps serving as its progenitor.
In spite of our misgivings, I encourage you to watch the videos. I hope you may catch things I may have missed. I hope that opens up more exciting avenues for us.
If am not mistaken, men, even faithful prophets can be fallible. In one of the conversations between Elijah and God, he said “I’m the only one left.”. God replied, “I still have 7000 men who are loyal to Me.”. Obviously, with incomplete data, men can still have a wrong conclusion. Now, if the conclusion cannot be settled, we can still fix some of the premises while we’re at it and hope for the best.
Ii think I mentioned I am retired so is Coni. The highest level of education we both have is associate degrees ; Coni in medical office specialist and me in electronics. We have 4 daughters, the oldest is 47 and the youngest is 40. All but the youngest are married and Weare blessed with 7 grandchildren and 1 great grandchild.
Zooming back out to Philosophy, it is impossible to thoroughly divorce science from scripture. If Adam as the prototype and progenitor of the human race wasn’t real, then the rest of scripture that make reference to him would be nonsense. The promises of God, both small and great have no meaning unless the histories of scripture were ontologically and hence scientifically real, even if our current tools don’t allow for testing. For future events like resurrection and immortality to be reduced to mere memories left behind is also nonsense, or at best a pitiful missense.
From the videos I’ve seen thus far, the geocentric, heliocentric and galactocentric models are actually identical with each other as far as observations are concerned. They are equally viable for modeling the motion of every object. It isn’t motion that’s the issue, but the very geometry of the visible cosmos that points to preferred directions and axes - that carries serious theological and ontological implications, if not outright significance. Whatever is asserted in one field can have serious implications in the other. It goes back and forth. To be fair, centricity or any anisotropy/inhomogeneity is signal in the midst of noise - a sign of prior intelligence/choice.
From the videos I’ve seen thus far, the geocentric, heliocentric and galactocentric models are actually identical with each other as far as observations are concerned. They are equally viable for modeling the motion of every object. It isn’t motion that’s the issue, but the very geometry of the visible cosmos that points to preferred directions and axes - that carries serious theological and ontological implications, if not outright significance. Whatever is asserted in one field can have serious implications in the other. It goes back and forth. To be fair, centricity or any anisotropy/inhomogeneity is signal in the midst of noise - a sign of prior intelligence/choice.
I have a theory that God, who has given his intelligent creations a job, may well have given angels a role to play in His creation of the universe. Not the actual creation but perhaps in the placement in space of of all the celestial objects. It has recently been discovered by the James Webb telescope that very distant galaxies are the same age as the milky way. This indicates their coming to existence is the same. We could say that Earth as central is God's focus and that in the very distant future He plans to expand His kingdom out into the cosmos.
True science should agree with scripture. Most scientists are atheists and concentrate on only the physical and being carnal minded invent theories to answer questions that are totally spiritual . With any theory they come up with to explain the origin of the universe there is included another force or action from perhaps another dimension, parallel universe that brought about our universe. I would ask, where did the other forces, actions, dimensions and universes come from ?
While multiversal theories do strain Occam’s razor, even their existence requires fine tuning. There seems to be no way to exclude prior intelligence, when it comes to design, even more so with self-replication.
Here’s what seems to be the latest revision of Geocentricity from Robert Sungenis. One of the main point is that in mainstream cosmology, the absolute stillness of the Earth is supplanted by the constant speed of light.
Whatever amount of matter, energy, space & time that was created by God remains the same as these do not procreate. Life only comes from life. Dead things cannot produce life. Objects emitting light have been doing so since placed in their positions at creation on the fourth day. This seems to indicate that none of these existed prior. There would be no way to measure things that do not exist. The first law of thermodynamics.
Whatever amount of matter, energy, space & time that was created by God remains the same as these do not procreate. Life only comes from life. Dead things cannot produce life. Objects emitting light have been doing so since placed in their positions at creation on the fourth day. This seems to indicate that none of these existed prior. There would be no way to measure things that do not exist. The first law of thermodynamics.
Genesis 1:14 This is when time began. The celestial objects we use to measure time, which is the passing of our existence, did not exist themselves until this fourth day. The Earth already existed and was being repaired and prepared for man. What this would suggest is that Earth is the oldest object in the universe. We are unable to measure time from the first day to the third because time did not exist. It would also suggest that any other life forms in the universe would be no older than man thus ruling out intelligent beings more far advanced than man.
Even light as we know it did not exist until the fourth day but regardless of this their light is recorded as shining on the Earth when the vast distances involved would by human science be declared impossible.
Humans are extremely limited beings created after the fourth day in time and subject to the physical only. Here now in the twenty first century some of our kind called scientists have theories about creation that eliminate a creator. In the final analysis they are engaged in an exercise of futility. To truly understand the universe one would have to possess a common frame of reference to whatever caused creation. They would have to accept the facts , the details and specifics of the causer. I believe that if this information began to enter their minds it would prove to be terminal. It would be comparable to seeing the face of God.
Even light as we know it did not exist until the fourth day but regardless of this their light is recorded as shining on the Earth when the vast distances involved would by human science be declared impossible.
Humans are extremely limited beings created after the fourth day in time and subject to the physical only. Here now in the twenty first century some of our kind called scientists have theories about creation that eliminate a creator. In the final analysis they are engaged in an exercise of futility. To truly understand the universe one would have to possess a common frame of reference to whatever caused creation. They would have to accept the facts , the details and specifics of the causer. I believe that if this information began to enter their minds it would prove to be terminal. It would be comparable to seeing the face of God.