[geocentrism] An off subject subject.

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:13:42 +1000

Not entirely on subject , re biblical discussions and political involvement, 
may I get a few opinions on geocentrism as regards scripture, by asking for 
comment on this following, which seeks to deny it..  by a 
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. who merely claims of no opinion or proof either 
way. 

  I place my comment in red. 
DOES THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF REQUIRE ONE TO ACCEPT A GEOCENTRIC VIEW 
OF THE UNIVERSE?

Thus far I have evaluated the question of whether any of the acts against 
Galileo or the movement of the Earth constitute an infallible teaching of the 
Church in favor of the geocentric view of the universe. I believe that I have 
shown that the answer is no.Thats just his opinion...

But does the language of scripture require one to hold such a view? For 
instance:

Psalm 103:5: " [God] Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall 
not be moved for ever and ever."

Some advocates of the geocentric view of the universe say that this passage of 
scripture binds all to hold the geocentric position:

John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism: "While some of the other 
texts which naturally suppose a geocentric system (Matthew 45:45 [sic] and 
Ephesians 4:26, for instance) could, at a stretch, be understood to refer to 
appearances and to employ common parlance without vouching for its scientific 
accuracy, this clearly does not apply to the foregoing or to Psalm 103:5: 'Who 
hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and 
ever.'"

In this context, people often cite a similar verse from Psalm 92:

Psalm 92:1- "The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord 
isclothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the 
world which shall not be moved."

To form a better opinion about whether these texts prove the geocentric view of 
the universe, here are three passages of scripture which, to my knowledge, have 
not yet been brought forward in this context:

Proverbs 10:30- "The just shall never be moved: but the wicked shall not 
dwellon the earth."

Psalms 14:5- "He that hath not put out his money to usury, nor taken 
bribesagainst the innocent: He that doth these things shall not be moved for 
ever."

Psalms 111:5-6 "Acceptable is the man that showeth mercy and lendeth: heshall 
order his words with judgment. Because he shall not be moved for ever."

We see that the scriptural declaration, it "shall not be moved for ever," is 
not only applied to Earth, but three times to the just man. Since we are 
obviously not required to hold that the just man is the immoveable center of 
the universe, this might show that the words in the book of Psalms do not 
necessarily mean that Earth stands immoveable at the center of the universe.

What about the other passages of Holy Scripture that are frequently cited in 
this regard?

John Daly: "As to the factual question of whether Holy Scripture does indeed 
unequivocally teach the geocentric system, we consider any attempt to deny the 
fact to share the same absurdity of those who would reconcile Genesis with 
evolution. In Josue 10:12,13 is recounted the miracle by which, in order to 
prolong the day for the Israelites to defeat the five kings who attacked 
Gabaon, God arrested the movement of the sun and the moon: 'And the sun and the 
moon stood still...the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not 
to go down the space of one day.'

"A similar miracle is recounted at 4 Kings 20:1 when the prophet Isaias 
actually caused the sun to move backwards as a sign to Achaz. It is true that 
the text refers only to the retrograde motion of the shadow on the sundial 
which, on the heliocentric hypothesis, could equally have been produced by 
reversing the diurnal motion of the earth, but this interpretation is ruled out 
by Isaias 38:8 which recounts the same event in objective terms: 'And the sun 
returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down.'"

What about these arguments from the book of Josue and 4 Kings? In answering 
this it must be reiterated again that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant 
word of God. It is true in all its parts, in all its history and in all the 
subjects it teaches. It would be heretical to assert that Sacred Scripture errs 
in its history or in its description of things as they took place. However, as 
Pope Leo XIII points out in his encyclical on Sacred Scripture:

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893: ". the sacred 
writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did 
not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of 
the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable to salvation'  
[St.Augustine]. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but 
rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or 
in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are 
in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary 
speech primarily and properly comes from the senses; and somewhat in the same 
way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] reminds us 
- 'went by what sensibly appeared,' [Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad. 
3] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could 
understand and were accustomed to."  Noe here this is only a papal opinion, not 
an infallible offering. 

Take, as an example of what Pope Leo XIII is talking about, the following 
passage from Josue 18 - the same book which figures very prominently at the 
heart of the geocentrism controversy:

Josue 18:15-16- "But on the south side the border goeth out from part of 
Cariathiarim towards the sea, and cometh to the fountain of the waters of 
Nephtoa. And it goeth down to that part of the mountain that looketh on the 
valley of the children of Ennom: and is over against the north quarter in the 
furthermost part of the valley of Raphaim, and it goeth down into Geennom (that 
is the valley of Ennom) by the side of the Jebusite to the south: and cometh to 
the fountain of Rogel."

Here we see a clear example of what Pope Leo XIII is talking about. Do 
mountains look upon things? No. Sacred Scripture's declaration about the 
mountain is nevertheless absolutely true. It is describing the side of the 
mountain which faces the valley of the children of Ennom. That was signified, 
as Pope Leo XIII says, "in the way men could understand and were accustomed 
to," in this case by referring to "that part of the mountain that looketh on 
the valley," even though mountains don't literally "look upon" things.

Another example would be a phrase which occurs throughout the Old Testament: 
God repeatedly promises His people that He would deliver their enemies "into 
their hands."

Josue 10:8 -" And the Lord said to Josue: Fear them not: for I have delivered 
them into thy hands: none of them shall be able to stand against thee."

The Bible also declares after the fact - in other words, as a historical fact - 
that the Lord delivered the Chanaanite and the Pherezite into their hands:

Judges 1:4- "And Juda went up, and the Lord delivered the Chanaanite, and the 
Pherezite into their hands: and they slew of them in Bezec ten thousand men."

Did the Lord literally deliver all ten thousand of them "into their hands"? 
Most of them were probably killed by the sword and didn't literally enter into 
all of their hands. So, even though some today might consider that statement to 
be improper according to the literal rule of how things are understood and 
expressed today, it was absolutely correct and historically accurate according 
to how things were expressed and understood then; for the Lord delivered their 
enemies into their power to be eliminated.

Moreover, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes (while quoting St. Thomas) that the sacred 
writers accurately expressed "what sensibly appeared."

Josue 10:12-13 - "Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered 
the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them:

Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. 
And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of 
their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood 
still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day."

Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing 
according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not 
go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle 
and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not "seek to 
penetrate the secrets of nature"; that is to say, the sacred books didn't seek 
or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because 
the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did. 
Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia.

Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these 
passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical 
truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for 
what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena 
(as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the 
creation of these external phenomena.

All that being said, I am open to the possibility that those passages of Sacred 
Scripture referred to above do indeed teach the geocentric view of the 
universe. I simply don't know one way or the other. The point of this article 
is not to attempt to demonstrate which position is true, but to examine whether 
the Catholic Church has infallibly taught the geocentric view of the universe 
or condemned the denial of it. I believe that the answer is no.

Bro Dimond has a vested interest in forming this opinion. It suitably assists 
him in winning another doctrineal question, he opposes the doctrine of Baptism 
of desire.  

I oppose him on both counts..  

Philip. 

Other related posts: