While the case for Biblical geocentrism, is better than that
for a Flat Earth, geocentrics tend to make some of the same mistakes that flat
earthers make, the big one is assuming that the word earth always refers to the
planet Earth despite the fact that God personally calls the dry land earth.
Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land Earth, and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
What this indicates is that unless the context of its usage
indicates otherwise the word “earth” refers only to dry land. Now sometimes the
context will indicate that it refers to dirt or even the entire planet, but dry
land is the default meaning.
Another common mistake egocentrics make is assuming that
descriptions of motion in the Bible are absolute, despite the fact that motion
is entirely relative. For example, if I see a car going by me at 55 miles an
hour an occupant of the car sees me going by at 55 miles an hour in the
opposite direction. In this case, most of the verses used to support
geocentrism are simply describing what is happening from the perspective of an
observer on the Earth. In fact, the only actual difference between geocentrism and
heliocentrism is a choice of coordinate systems. Naturally, when doing
calculations involving planetary orbits a heliocentric model is easier to work
with than a geocentric one.
Job 38: 14, It is turned as clay to the seal, and they stand
as a garment.
Here's a verse they referred to the rotation of the Earth.
It particularly makes sense when the word “earth” is seen as referring to dry
land. This makes the analogy of the earth being turned as clay a perfect fit to
the rotation of the planet Earth.
They often tend to fail to understand that in some cases,
particularly the Book of Revelations, the Bible is describing an event from an
observational perspective here on earth and not necessarily from a scientific
perspective. For example, revelation describes a mountain being cast into the
sea, this sounds a lot like an asteroid impact described in non-scientific
terminology. This differs from those that claim their Genesis is a metaphor is
that you are still taking the description in the Bible as accurate, but just
using words that would have been available when the text was actually written.
Ultimately once you realize that all that motion is
relative, the question of geocentrism versus heliocentrism pretty much goes
away. This is because they are both just choices of a frame of reference. Now
it is true that when dealing with the solar system a heliocentric frame of
reference is the easiest to work with. However, when calculating the orbit of a
satellite around the Earth or a trajectory to the moon and back a geocentric
reference frame Is the simplest. By the way, it is just as legitimate under the
proper circumstances to use a lunar-centric model, a Martin-centric model, and
so on. This is not an argument against absolute truth, but simply a recognition
that what is being described in the Bible verses used by geocentric is simply
describing where is Being described from the standpoint of an observer on
Earth, something that makes sense when that is someone's perspective that most
of your readers are going to have.
Help support these articles.
Make purchases on Amazon through this link:
Answers for Kids Box Set
The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock
No comments:
Post a Comment