Was Christ a Geocentrist?

A lot of this banter can be more easily truncated by understanding the ultimate aim of Ekklesian. Is it to prove the veracity of the Scriptures or to show it erroneous. From there, the journey will be smoother.
 
A lot of this banter can be more easily truncated by understanding the ultimate aim of Ekklesian. Is it to prove the veracity of the Scriptures or to show it erroneous. From there, the journey will be smoother.
thank you....:) ..... you said it well..... i know what i am trying to say... just having a hard time saying it this morning.... ...we are leaving in a few minutes anyway to go meet with other people in the ems community..... ..it;s been a very long night...and will be an even longer day..... ...i'll be back later.....
 

3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?
Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption that the speed of light will always be the same everywhere in the universe irrespective of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer. The ability of special relativity to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical phenomena which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate this assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and all other experiments of similar intent) to detect any motion of the earth through space is understood by modern science in terms of relativity rather than geocentricity.
Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred Hoyle, as follows:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.[1]
Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.
Back to the substance. I'm wondering if anyone bothered to read the article quoted here. It basically says that Relativity is the generally accepted cosmology, because the efforts of naturalistic scientists to prove the earth moves failed.

Einstein then postulated his Special theory to explain the null result of the Michelsohn-Morely experiment by asserting the constancy of the speed of light in reference to the observer. This put the geocentric and non-geocentric models of the universe on equal footing.

His theories allowed a physicist to presume that any point in the universe occupies the center of mass and is immobile, and explain the resulting observations according the 'laws of physics.'

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest." Hawking, The Grand Design.

Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, the Church: all their cosmologies are equally scientifically valid.

One of Einstein's contemporaries said it is a matter of preference, not truth.
 
Sorry, Ekklesian, but your refusal to answer questions has just made you a boring wet blanket!
What questions were those? Speaking of which, do you still hold to the notion that Joshua 10:12-13 describes an eclipse?
 
Yes I do. It’s scientifically plausible.
For about the span of a day.

Really? How long do eclipses tend to last generally?

And wouldn't an eclipse defeat the the whole purpose of the prayer? They wanted an extended period of sunlight to see to fight for an extended period. How does blocking the sun, even partially, begin to be an answer to that prayer?
 
"Dude," you said the sunrise represented a blessing.
No I didn't. I said it was and is a blessing. Christ said, God blesses the evil and the good with sun and rain. You should bless the evil and good as well, and be the children of your Father.

There is no symbolism whatever.
 
Was not the stopping of the sun and moon a miracle - a supernatural event that cannot be explained by natural processes?
Yes, yes it was.
So the question then is this, do you believe that what actually happened was something different? Do you believe it was actually the earth that was stopped, or do you believe that it was as it is written?

And here:

And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day? And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz. 2 Kings 20:8-11​
 
Back
Top