An anti-Transubstantiation argument for Geocentrism? (John Edwards)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Back to Edwards, if the only thing keeping him from transubstatiation was that he couldn't feel the elements turning to actual flesh and blood, there was something wrong with his theology.
As for one of his reasons for geocentrism, that obviously the earth is still because air isn't rushing past always--well, even modern flat-earth geocentrists admit that the air gets thinner the higher you go--your senses tell you that--and eventually there is no more air. Surely none of them think that the entire universe all the way up to the dark curtain or whatever that comprises the edge contains breathable air! Back then they didn't understand the idea of a vaccuum, so they thought all empty space was filled with "ether," which, ironically, was impossible to feel.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Actually, scientific testing showed the earth at rest. Michaelson- Morley and Sagnac among others. ( from list of quotes link below)

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

The reason Time Magazine named Einstein "Man of the Century" is that after a couple decades of scientists puzzling about the scientific results (of course the earth could not be at the center), Einstein explained everything with his theory of relativity.

I would have to say that it is relativity that primarily goes against common sense realism, as well as classical physics. That is where the debate really lies- is relativity correct or is it nonsense. There are PhD astronomers and physicists out there who answer every objection that might arise from the heliocentrists, and it's probably all been posted here before.

I just tried to find a list of quotes I posted a while back. I did see this that I posted myself.....common sense fails us all I think, the numbers are too hard to grasp.

"It is interesting to compare the solar system with one atom. Now I know the old Bohr model with electrons as little orbiting points is no longer the model. We now have a nucleus grain of sand in the middle of picturing a big puff of smoke, which can be a sphere or doughnut or dumbbell, and the electron is a probability wave of quantum physics now.

If our sun and the nucleus of a gold atom were each scaled to one foot long, the outer electron of the gold atom ( or edge of the uncertainty shell) would be past Pluto. (The earth would be 215 feet out.)

https://www.google.com/search?q=per...ei=r7H7V_naOsXme4egpOAN#imgrc=Nc2FckaS9bkClM:

So using a classical Bohr model, every second that electron with an orbit out past Pluto spins 1.7854*10^20 revolutions per second around the sun. Can you imagine Pluto spinning around the sun 1.780,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every single second?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103143328AAI2BrN

Yet people think the universe could not spin every 24 hours. (and see Barry Setterfield on the speed of light decay for why the universe size is far smaller than you've been led to believe).

People accept the structure of an atom without giving it a single thought. Yet the same God who can make an electron spin (or do its uncertainty principle wave motion thing)the equivalent of Pluto spinning around the sun 1.780,000,000,000,000,000,000 times every single second can't make the planets and stars spin every day?"

Here is a list of quotes from Sungenis' book, fascinating reading:

https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html
Amen
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I am just after reading this highly intriguing extract from John Edwards wherein he argued against Copernicanism on the basis that it, as with the Romish notion of transubstantiation, was contrary to our senses. What do you make of this argument and how would you argue against it from a Common Sense Realist point of view?

Fourthly,
I would argue thus, Why do we check and gall (and not undeservedly) the Romanists with this, that they deny their Senses in holding of Transubstantiation? And why do we condemn the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for being contradictory to the verdict of our Senses, if we hold that the Earth turns round notwithstanding we have no notice of it in the least by our Senses? Or, can we be wheeled and hurled about every minute as fast as we can imagine, and yet have no Apprehension of it, not only not feeling the Earth move under us, but not perceiving the Air at all moved, nor having any intimation of it by our Sight, or any other Sense at any time of our whole Lives? This is not to be believed, and why therefore do any take the Confidence to assert the Earth's moving under them when they have no Sense of it?

For this is certain that if there be any such thing, it is the proper Object of Sensation. But if we admit this which is so much against our Senses, we may as well embrace Transubstantiation, which is a defiance to our Senses. If any Man satisfactorily answers this, I shall be inclined to be a Copernican, and I shall have a great Temptation to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, I mean upon this account of our Senses, though there are other Arguments which are purely Theological that will for ever uphold the contrary belief in me. In short, it is strange to me that such a considerable piece of Natural Philosophy as this, the Object of which is Corporeal and Sensible, should have no proof from any of the Senses. A Romanist with his Hoc est corpus may solve the matter, but I do not see how this can be the Philosophy of one of the Reformed.

John Edwards, A demonstration of the existence and providence of God, from the contemplation of the visible structure of the greater and the lesser world in two parts, the first shewing the excellent contrivance of the heavens, earth, sea, &c., the second the wonderful formation of the body of man (London: Jonathan Robinson and John Wyat, 1696), 1.2, pp 42-43.
I would say from common sense, science has a way of expanding our "common sense" to arenas beyond our immediate perception.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Junior
Regarding Michelson-Morley.

I've tried to correct this many times in the past (nearly every time I see Lynnie bring it up) but you can't use an experiment designed to test how the theoretical ether affects the speed of light to prove the earth is not moving. I'm fairly familiar with their experimental setup (electromagnetics is my area of expertise) and this is misinformed reasoning and misapplication of their experiment and results.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
If something like that developed, I guess so. (Isn’t it really unlikely that happening for that passage?) But no shame in standing with the passage as translated all these millennia, I think, until and unless that were to happen.

I am only noticing this one now, Jeri. Perhaps what I am getting at is that if empirical research proves as an incontrovertible fact that Geocentrism is wrong, then our reading of the book of revelation must concur with our reading of the book of nature. The two cannot contradict one another since God is the author of both. Consequently, if (note that I say if) Geocentrism is demonstrably mistaken, then we must jettison Geocentric interpretations in favour of phenomenalistic interpretations.
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually, scientific testing showed the earth at rest. Michaelson- Morley and Sagnac among others. ( from list of quotes link below)

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"Through the ether" That's the key. Since there is no such thing as "the ether", this is why the experiment came away with a speed of zero; there's no ether for the earth to move through.

The experiment didn't prove that the earth doesn't move, it proved that there's no "luminiferous aether" pervading all of space.

Also, do you have a source for your Richard Wolfson quote? You end the quotation with an ellipsis ("...") which means there's more to the quote that isn't shown.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Freshman
The rotation and orbit of the earth is only "contrary to sense" if one is standing on the earth looking up. When men stood on the moon, it looked as if the earth was rising and setting and the moon was still. If this CSR argument may be applied equally well to prove contradictory things, that the earth is still and the moon moves, and that the earth moves and the moon is still, then two possibilities remain: either 1) the argument is invalid in an absolute sense, or 2) the argument is misapplied, and no true contradiction exists. A thorough study of physics reveals that, at least as far as rotation is concerned, it can be proven that certain things are rotating in an absolute sense, and not relative sense, since regardless of one's frame of reference, it can be proven that the rotating thing is rotating. This is necessary to explain certain things that would otherwise be anomalous, such as the coriolis effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
^^ As well as the Coriolis effect, we have the gyrocompass, and focault's pendulum, which work along the same principles.
 

chuckd

Puritan Board Sophomore
That the text is referring to how we perceive things, rather than making a precise scientific statement about whether or not the sun circles around the earth. There is a technical term for it, but it has slipped my mind.
If the sun did not stop in Joshua, what happened?
 

chuckd

Puritan Board Sophomore
From just a basic physics standpoint, his understanding is limited by the extent of knowledge from his time period.

Example: Not feeling the earth moving beneath us. If you are moving at the same speed, then even according to Newton there would be no perceptible frame of reference. If you are on a smooth train which has reached its traveling speed (stopped accelerating), there is no way to "feel" that you are moving except for the bumps or corners. Does that mean the train isn't actually moving and therefore transubstantiation is real? Clearly not. Or try this on a plane at cruising altitude. You might almost feel like you are just floating in a noisy room and yet clearly you are traveling rapidly.

There are many things we can't sense without the use of tools or instruments. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Example: the electromagnetic waves that allow your devices to communicate over wifi or cell towers. We can't sense it (even if some people claim they are allergic to it), yet it clearly exists---we use it all the time.
Imagine you wake up in outer space without stars or planets. All you see is a man rotating head over foot. Is he rotating or are you?
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Senior
If the sun did not stop in Joshua, what happened?

I would say it’s the same thing that happened when the weatherman this morning said, "The sun rose at 6:32am." We know he wasn't making a literalistic statement about the motion of the sun. Rather, he was simply using a phenomenological descriptor to communicate an event as it seems to us. Yet his statement is no less true. It's just that "sunrise" is easier than saying "the beginning of the 24-hour day cycle initiated in our calendars by the sun appearing over the horizon due to the consistent rotation of the earth on its axis."

This happens all over Scripture. Interpreting something like the sun event in Joshua as phenomenological language is no less respectful of Scripture than interpreting God's having body parts in Scripture as anthropomorphic. And, no matter how one describes it—whether the sun stopped, or the earth stopped—it is no less a miracle that only God by his omnipotence could accomplish.
 

chuckd

Puritan Board Sophomore
I would say it’s the same thing that happened when the weatherman this morning said, "The sun rose at 6:32am." We know he wasn't making a literalistic statement about the motion of the sun. Rather, he was simply using a phenomenological descriptor to communicate an event as it seems to us. Yet his statement is no less true. It's just that "sunrise" is easier than saying "the beginning of the 24-hour day cycle initiated in our calendars by the sun appearing over the horizon due to the consistent rotation of the earth on its axis."

This happens all over Scripture. Interpreting something like the sun event in Joshua as phenomenological language is no less respectful of Scripture than interpreting God's having body parts in Scripture as anthropomorphic. And, no matter how one describes it—whether the sun stopped, or the earth stopped—it is no less a miracle that only God by his omnipotence could accomplish.
Why do you think it was phenomenological language?

And the earth suddenly stopping in Joshua would have had catastrophic affects on anything at rest on the surface.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Freshman
Imagine you wake up in outer space without stars or planets. All you see is a man rotating head over foot. Is he rotating or are you?
The one who throws up in his space suit is rotating.
Various aspects of the sensation of rotating, such as the sensation of one's members being "pulled away" from one's center of mass, could be used to determine which is spinning. Like a figure skater, do you spin faster when you pull your arms in? Then you're definitely spinning, since that doesn't happen when you're still.
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
So, God has the power to stop a planet, but not enough power to stop the possible drastic effects?

This reminds me of an IFB who insisted that Jesus could NOT have possibly turned water into ALCOHOLIC wine because it takes grape juice a couple days to start fermenting and the stuff was only in the barrels for a few minutes.

Like, the Son of God could turn water into grape juice, that's cool, no worries, but the further chemical reactions of fermentation? No, THAT the Lord of All Creation needed to allow to happen at a natural pace.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Rev. Winzer through the years here on PB has showed how the text (and indeed the whole Bible) teaches that the sun moves in relation to earth. There are no markers in the text to allow for it being interpreted phenomenologically. The Scripture itself, therefore God himself, states that at the command of Joshua the sun ceased its movement. (The moon also was commanded.)
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Markers identifying the genre of a passage in question. Joshua 6 is straightforwardly a historical narrative. I know that for many (most) the “science is settled” on the movements of the earth and the heavenly bodies. But I think being settled on those matters can be premature. :)
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
"Through the ether" That's the key. Since there is no such thing as "the ether", this is why the experiment came away with a speed of zero; there's no ether for the earth to move through.

The experiment didn't prove that the earth doesn't move, it proved that there's no "luminiferous aether" pervading all of space.

Also, do you have a source for your Richard Wolfson quote? You end the quotation with an ellipsis ("...") which means there's more to the quote that isn't shown.
I'm sorry, I meant to reply sooner and got busy.

The sources are probably in the original list by Sungenis, you could try this for even more comprehensive commentary and quotes on the subject....https://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t569-geocentricity-ordered-quotes

I don't think you quite understand that Michaelson-Morley showed the earth at rest, and for that reason Einstein was hailed as a genius when he introduced his relativity theory a while later. Yes they were measuring speed through the ether, which you claim does not exist ( geocentrists say it does), but the point is, there was no change in the light speed moving towards a star in one direction and away six months later. Normally measuring waves, we add and subtract the speed of the object moving, in relation to the speed of the wave. The speed of the allegedly moving earth made no difference in the measured speed of the starlight.

This was philosophically impossible, and hence relativity became the solution, with its attendant concepts about time itself changing and so forth, which was rejected by many scientists at the time as ridiculous, but is now as canonical as evolution for the most part in science.

The coriolis effect and focault's pendulum and all sorts of objections work just fine with a rotating universe. You can check it out easily with a search, I am not going to even link more stuff that has been covered at PB before. Even the greatest helios admit it is a philosophical discussion as both models (geo and helio) explain all observed phenomena so long as you include relativity theory with the helio. Take that away and geo wins.
 

SeanPatrickCornell

Puritan Board Sophomore
... I don't think you quite understand that Michaelson-Morley showed the earth at rest...

I'm very familiar with Michelson-Morley, why the test was done, the science behind the test, and what it was trying to prove, and I am 100% certain beyond all doubt that what it did not prove was that the Earth was at rest.

In fact, if you too the MIchelson-Morley test and replicated it on a rocket that was flying at a constant speed away from Earth, it would give the exact same result. Would that then prove that the rocket was really at rest?

lynnie said:
but the point is, there was no change in the light speed moving towards a star in one direction and away six months later.

?????

That's not the Michelson-Morley test...
 
Last edited:

Logan

Puritan Board Junior
I don't think you quite understand that Michaelson-Morley showed the earth at rest, and for that reason Einstein was hailed as a genius when he introduced his relativity theory a while later. Yes they were measuring speed through the ether, which you claim does not exist ( geocentrists say it does), but the point is, there was no change in the light speed moving towards a star in one direction and away six months later. Normally measuring waves, we add and subtract the speed of the object moving, in relation to the speed of the wave. The speed of the allegedly moving earth made no difference in the measured speed of the starlight.

Lynnie, I've said it before, but that's just incorrect. That's not how waves normally work, that's not how Doppler shifts work.

And M-M did not even look at the speed of light six months apart. They measured two beams of light, one perpendicular to the other. The idea was that if there was an ether, one beam should be slower than the other. The results showed no difference. That is not even close to being the same as measuring the earth is moving.

And actually, there is a small red/blue shift yearly. So yes, there absolutely is a change detected in moving towards a star and away six months later but that is not the same as speed of the wave, although related.

Also, to those who claim it works both ways: a mathematical model is not the same thing as a physical model. Just because you can do the math in both frames of reference does not account for all the phenomena we observe. A geocentrist can come up with all kinds of models post facto but to my knowledge has never demonstrated (let alone verified) any predictions. The explanations a geocentrist has for Focault's Pendulum are convoluted and lacking, to say the least.
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Senior
Markers identifying the genre of a passage in question. Joshua 6 is straightforwardly a historical narrative. I know that for many (most) the “science is settled” on the movements of the earth and the heavenly bodies. But I think being settled on those matters can be premature. :)

Why would we not then conclude, on this reasoning, that historical narrative passages that speak of God’s body parts would have to speak of actual body parts? Acts 13:11 says that the hand of the Lord fell upon Saul to strike him with blindness. Was that a literal hand?

In the end, this interpretation just doesn’t seem plausible to me. It is too difficult a hermeneutical principle to apply universally without serious theological problems. Just because something is within a historical narrative doesn’t make everything described therein literalistic you intended. This is how papists arrive at transubstantiation. After all, Jesus said that the wine is his blood—and this is historical narrative, too, by the way. (Also, lest I be accused, I am not saying that geocentrists affirm transubstantiation.)

Sure, the geocentric theory fits well with the Joshua miracle, but the text simply doesn’t demand it. That’s my issue. I just think this is an area that is too wonderful for us, and something, as you yourself said, about which we should not be settled.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Freshman
Markers identifying the genre of a passage in question. Joshua 6 is straightforwardly a historical narrative. I know that for many (most) the “science is settled” on the movements of the earth and the heavenly bodies. But I think being settled on those matters can be premature. :)
This misrepresents the phenomenological claim though. The phenomenological claim is not that the passages in question are always using metaphor in a poetic context, where one might expect the poetic nature of the text to be "marked", but that phenomenological metaphor is common even in otherwise literal, direct speech.
I, in everyday, non-poetic conversation, routinely speak of "sunrises" and "sunsets", despite not believing that the sun is literally rising or falling. If one examined my speech for markers of poeticness, they wouldn't find any. Does that mean that they could validly claim that, based on the genre of my speech, it contains no metaphor whatsoever, and therefore I must believe the Earth is at the center of the solar system? Of course not.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
“I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible merely accommodated its language to the misconception of the one/s telling or reading the account. This is a liberal view of accommodation.”- MW (in the first thread linked).

Yes, this is the issue. The Bible doesn’t accommodate its language in this way in what it affirms.
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Senior
“I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible merely accommodated its language to the misconception of the one/s telling or reading the account. This is a liberal view of accommodation.”- MW (in the first thread linked).

Yes, this is the issue. The Bible doesn’t accommodate its language in this way in what it affirms.

Then the very idea of accommodation is liberal. Accommodation is the speaking figuratively of things we cannot conceive.

Furthermore, by what authority does he say this is the “liberal” view?
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
Then the very idea of accommodation is liberal. Accommodation is the speaking figuratively of things we cannot conceive.

Furthermore, by what authority does he say this is the “liberal” view?

I think he was getting at the difference between accommodating to truth versus accommodating to error.

Joshua 10:12-13 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,....

The text seems to indicate that everyone involved thought that the sun was actually moving and that it actually stood still in response to Joshua's command.

It's one thing to accommodate to people's perceptions in a way that upholds the truth. It's another to mislead people into thinking one thing happened when it didn't really happen at all. (Before Copernicus, would people have read heliocentricity into the text?).

As Rev. Winzer put it in comment #48 of the first thread linked above,

I accept the Calvinian, not the Cartesian, teaching of accommodation. I suggest participants in this thread do some reading on this subject in order to discover the difference. Your advocacy of Cartesian accommodation equally justifies liberal explanations of Bible miracles.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top