We are the center of all creation?

[JL Vaughn]

Over at the SGP site, a piece by David Curtis has been posted and some of the regulars there are falling all over each other trying to renounce their previous ways and adopt geocentrism. Yes, some there are now bragging about their new holier than thou view of accepting an interpretation of Scripture as if it were Scripture itself. Sad.

Some aboard the SGP train are crying out against this new found doctrine, as well they should, but it is too little too late. What they have failed to realize is that Genesis either teaches geocentrism from the very first verse or Genesis teaches something different from the creation of the physical universe.

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

³ And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

⁶ And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." ⁷ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

⁹ And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

At the end of verse 2, what did the creation consist of? A formless, empty, mass of water.

In verses 6-7, God separated the heavens or sky (literally sky-waters) from the water (literally waters).

In verses 9-10, God gathered the waters and let "earth" appear.

The waters were the source of the heavens and the source of the earth. If Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the physical universe, then the heavens were formed out of the primordial waters. These primordial waters are the center of the universe, the first thing created. The earth was then formed out of these same waters.

Why the need for Joshua's long day? Either Genesis 1 teaches a covenant beginning, or it teaches geocentrism.

[Tim Martin]

Interesting perspective, Jeff. I wish the "literalists" would take it more literally.

Over my years of study, I have seen a few make a compelling case that there is a logical link between young-earth creationism and geocentrism. We listed one example in BCS on pp. 352-353. The methodology is surely similar even if not all YEC advocates embrace geocentrism.

Now what I find remarkable in all of this is that David Curtis was a speaker at the 2010 Preterist Pilgrim Weekend in Ardmore, Oklahoma! I have also seen Sam Frost make positive comments regarding geocentrism (particularly in his debate with Ward Fenley a couple of years ago). Someone should ask Sam if he agrees with David Curtis on this issue -- assuming Sam is still a full preterist.

Does Don Preston know that one of his speakers at PPW has offered a public sermon advocating geocentrism? If not, someone should probably clue him in on the caliber of speakers he is backing at PPW. It's bad enough when someone who is ignorant of science and has no knowledge of history spouts off this stupidity within the wider Christian community. Augustine had a stinging critique for such nonsense. But here you have a public proponent of geocentrism speaking at a major preterist conference hosted by the Preterist Research Institute.

I just hope the critics don't figure this out. Another example of how YEC-type thinking continues to stifle the progress and development of preterism in our time.

Tim Martin

[Tami]

I just scanned through the thread over there.

I am speechless.

[Norm]

And we thought Preterism had problems with the AD70 rapture proponents giving us a cultish appearance. This is bad bad news for Preterism. :(

[Tami]

ok, I have a stupid question now:

David Curtis said, "Heliocentricity is the teaching that the sun is the center of the universe and everything [in the universe] revolves around it."

I am no scientist, but I thought the sun was merely the center of the solar system, not the whole universe. Did I not pay very good attention in science class?

[Norm]

Yes, but David didn't, this is generally understood in relation to our solar system not in general to the universe except I believe some Muslims may toy around with the Sun as the center of the Universe.

Speaking of Muslims it appears our fundamentalist Preterist friends are comfortable with relegating science to the realm of insignificance leading our society into scientific decay as the Islamic world has taken on. The reaping of what is being sown by fundamentalist today will begin to take its toll through the ages unless it can be broken sooner rather than later. Take a look at the Islamic world and the Taliban as examples of where this mentality leads and its corrosive effect upon their societies to compete in the modern world of ideas. It is well established how the Islamist have been deteriorating and falling behind for hundreds of years now. And now our Preterist YEC want to put us in their model of ignorance.

As Gomer used to say “shame shame shame”.

[MoGrace2u]

So is heliocentricity a proven fact or only a theory as David said? Cause if a fact then it is indisputable, but one good theory deserves another! To test it if for no other reason.

[Norm]

Robin,

Frankly that is a poor question. Are you really a real live human being here now or just a theory that you exist and could be a mistaken mirage.

If you want to defend ignorance that has been dealt with for over 400 years now you can and join the ranks of the other flat earthers and such.

The idea that one can demonstrate that there might be some error or less than full understanding that undermines research is about the lamest argument known to mankind and I'll not waste my breath on such foolishness.

David Curtis bless his heart is I'm sure sincere but he is about as knowledgeble about practical science as a first grader and has absolutely no business challenging things he doesn't understand. He is no different than those UFO goof balls who invent all kinds of ideas about alien visits here to earth.

[JL Vaughn]

Robin,

Is gravity a proven fact? Or only a theory?

Things near earth, fall towards the center of the earth. This has been measured time and again. But technically, has it been proven?

In the logical, mathematical sense no. To prove gravity requires either some form of logical proof from something we know absolutely, or it requires doing every single possible experiment at every point in time from every point in the universe. Since we can only do experiments here, now, and only a few at a time, we are a bit limited. In this sense, we can only prove gravity here, now, and only for a limited few cases. The cases in-between or beyond, elsewhere, or later would be unproven.

Even for those cases, we can't really prove gravity. We could be misinterpreting the data. Maybe thing don't really fall towards the center of the earth. Maybe they fall towards the middle of New Jersey. From here, could you tell the difference?

In the historical-legal sense, yes. It is not reasonable to doubt gravity.

What about these experiments? It is rather easy to measure acceleration. You can even buy shoe sensors that will send acceleration measurements to your IPod. Formally, gravity is defined as a type of acceleration that has a certain type of source.

We can measure the acceleration of a point on the earth's surface. That shows the earth is spinning. Every rocket launch ever made depended on the earth spinning.

Heliocentricity is a proven model for our solar system. If you need to consider other stars, heliocentricity fails. It is an inadequate model. A map of Whittier will help you get home from an unfamiliar part of town. That map is of less value for getting home from nearby Santa Fe Springs. It is almost useless in helping you get home from Burbank. And don't even think about using it to get you home from Blythe.

Geocentricity just fails.

Blessings.

[Doug]

But geocentricity isn't really the question, is it?

the question really gets to the point of whether God thinks people are the center - the be all and end all - of what He is doing.

It takes a lot of arrogance to make such a claim. But as I read Is. 66:1-2, I see that the earth is God's FOOTSTOOL. Hardly the center of anything. In fact, one could make a good case for the kings of old making vanquished kings sit at their feet.

But continuing on in Isaiah, we are reminded that God really only looks at those who are humble, and of a contrite spirit. Geocentrism and all its attendant peripheral doctrines is hardly a humble attitude, now is it?

[Tami]

I wasn't willing to go to this much trouble, but someone else was, and it needs to be shared:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newcreationministries/message/3506