Where’ve you been, Ekkk?
Geocentrism
- Thread starter Bob Jones V
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 1,617
- Points
- 113
There you go again...A$$uming things. We're FAR from a team, Aaron. It still sounds like you're chasing the guys on this forum.Well then, we make a good team.
I guess Ekkk’s been pretty busy lately…silly me for asking. 
Au contraire mon frere. Your lack of wit would not be evident without me. Now gimme a hug!We're FAR from a team, Aaron.
Yeah, it is your busy time of year
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 1,617
- Points
- 113
You're just helping me show what a strange character you truly are. Now, go back to your cell husband.Au contraire mon frere. Your lack of wit would not be evident without me. Now gimme a hug!
Because position and its relationship to meaning is the topic. But a geocentric model needs no defense. It's a scientifically valid model. I didn't say that. The apostles of Relativity, Einstein and Hawking, both asserted that.
That's the surprising thing to most people.
Your reading of Genesis 1 (and other eminently geocentric Scriptural references) is influenced by the presupposition that a non-earth-centered model is a scientific certainty, as mine was for over forty years.
And then one learns that cosmology is all about the endeavor to explain the observations of astronomers from a naturalistic point of view, and that requires keeping the earth out of the center of the phenomena. It's not real science. It's philosophy.
Last edited:
But regardless of whether or not one believes the earth is in motion, and therefore does not occupy the very center, the thinking that we can be anywhere near it is verboten. In fact they theorize a flat universe to eliminate an edge or center. There is only a handful of Creationist that allow for the earth to be stationary. However, the majority of Bible-believing astrophysicists that reject the Big Bang and the fanciful theories introduced to keep it propped up, are compelled to consider a galactocentric model, still keeping the earth comparatively very near the center.
But once one concedes that the earth was purposefully placed where it is, and that all other bodies in the heavens were placed where they are for the sake of the earth, Gen. 1:16-17, and once it's realized that a geocentric model is rejected by cosmologists on purely philosophical bases, it's no great leap in logic to consider the geocentric model the true one.
But once one concedes that the earth was purposefully placed where it is, and that all other bodies in the heavens were placed where they are for the sake of the earth, Gen. 1:16-17, and once it's realized that a geocentric model is rejected by cosmologists on purely philosophical bases, it's no great leap in logic to consider the geocentric model the true one.
Genesis 1 is theocentric, not geocentric.
If Geenesis 1 was geocentric, then even Jesus and Peter missed the importance of Genesis 1
If Geenesis 1 was geocentric, then even Jesus and Peter missed the importance of Genesis 1
As are the Ark, the flood, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarch's, the sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the Wandering, the Conquest of Canaan, and so on.
You're making the same point that those make who deny the historicity of the aforementioned events.
Last edited:
All kinds of natural people deny the othe events. IF the point of Genesis 1 is about the earth's location, then Jesus and Peter ignored the point.
A geocentric approach ignores and is apathetic to a theocentric approach. It undermines the Creator/creature distinction. What/Who is more important in Genesis 1?
This is better than anything RAIDER has ever posted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your historical approach ignores and is apathetic to a theocentric approach. It undermines the Author/faith distinction. What/Who is more important in Exodus 14?