Good morning group,
I have to say I am very pleased to find this topic being discussed but am
equally or perhaps more surprised than I am pleased. I am surprised because
I didn't know there were any people left who seriously believed this. I am
pleased because it goes to the heart of a problem I have long considered to
be both essential and not often discussed. That problem can be sumarized
as:
1)Can we establish criteria by which we can determine which parts of the
Bible are literally true, exactly as stated in a particular translation?
2) If we can establish such criteria, what are they?
3) If we can establish such criteria then either why have we not done so or
why is there not pretty much universal agreement about: the method by which
the criteria were established, what the criteria are, and which parts of
which translations are true?
It has seemed to me that once the reference to the sun being stopped in it's
orbit (geocentricity) so the soldiers of Joshua could continue their fight
elimimated as being literally true (by accepting the evidence for a sun
centered solar system over that for a geocentric system) then the criteria
of "being plainly spoken" and it's various phrasings, was eliminated as a
criteria and basically all bets were off and it was every person for
themselves trying to figure out what was or was not true. I have just never
heard or read a satisfactory explanation for believing either the 6 day
creation story or Noah's flood based on Biblical evidence once geocentricity
is eliminated. Wasn't that the whole problem with Galilieo? Or have I
remembered something incorrectly?
I look forward to whatever information and opinions may be offered. I don't
post here too often so if some of you are hesitant to reply thinking I am
just looking for an argument let me state again that I am much more
intereted in why people believe what that believe, than what they believe.
Darryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale K. Stalnaker" <dks@en.com>
To: <billyates@billyates.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Geocentricity
> Bill,
>
> The rebuttals that you mention here as well as other scientific arguments
> posted on the ASA list should be enough to persuade most educated people
> that Galileo had the right idea. Since these folks are convinced that
> science is anti-God, they willingly reject science and will probably
ignore
> any evidence you have for them.
>
> When I was a student at Cleveland State University (around 1977), I was
> shocked to learn that there was a member of the CSU faculty who believed
in
> geocentricity! He was the advisor for a fundamentalist Christian student
> fellowship group that met at the campus.
> He based this belief on Psalm 104:5, which says (in the KJV) "Who has laid
> the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever". In
> the NIV, the same verse is "He set the earth on its foundations, it can
> never be moved." Here is a simple rebuttle that does not involve much
> science. Even an ancient person who believes the earth to be flat, could
> not interpret this verse literally, because this would rule out
earthquakes!
>
> Dale Stalnaker
>
>
> At 01:44 PM 9/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi--
> >
> >I was stunned recently to discover that several people in my church (an
> >independent Reformed Baptist church) believed in geocentricity!
> >Otherwise normal, rational, and very nice people, I believe they have
> >been suckered into taking some Biblical references literally and not
> >figuratively. They are aided in this mistake by the Biblical Astronomer
> >site of Dr. Gerardus Buow.
> >
> >I have read his material and as well as I can decipher it, he claims to
> >have a solution for the apparent rotation and revolution of the Earth.
> >There is a response to these claims on TalkOrigins by E. T. Babinski and
> >a theological response posted on the web by Bernard E. Northrup, Th.D.
> >
> >What I am looking for are arguments, both scientific and theological,
> >which will, to the best extent possible, refute the arguments of
> >'modern' geocentricity. Some of the best scientific arguments against
> >geocentricity are the superluminal velocities of almost everything in
> >the universe required to have them rotate the Earth every 24 hours; the
> >variations in the length of the day caused by earthquakes (how would an
> >earthquake affect the rest of the universe?); and the latitudinal
> >variation in the diurnal aberration of starlight, that is, the apparaent
> >displacement of star postions caused by the speed of the Earth's
> >rotation, which varies from the equator to the poles. Can anyone think
> >of others?
> >
> >I know these people are sincere in their desire to honor the Word of
> >God, but it seems they have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >--Bill Yates
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 06:49:10 EDT