[geocentrism] A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:45:55 -0800 (PST)
fwd,
This from Madsen is not to me, so I will just take the quick way—but a fair
way, I think—of responding to his conjectures, which, I must admit, seem to me
to fall flat in his second sentence, which is obviously an assumption, but upon
which he proceeds to build everything. One can just as readily accept the first
part of his question, as the second, for which he claims contextual proof when
no such exists, and proceeds to ignore the context of scores of creation verses
throughout the Scriptures which attest to the first conjecture, not the second.
Anyway, there is an detailed explication and exegeses of this subject in three
substantive links which begin here:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm This not to
suggest, of course, that what I have written on the subject is ipso facto
correct and his incorrect. Not at all. It only suggests that there is a lot
more to the subject that must be considered from Scripture alone that itself
gives the scientific meaning which will withstand all critics.
Knowing from Philip’s other comments that he is a Roman Catholic by
affiliation; I am in need of enlightenment regarding his two opening sentences,
viz., “The majority of us [RC’s?] here [in Australia ?] are essentially (?)
fundamentalist believers in scripture as it is writ. This is why we are
geocentrist.”
It is my understanding that the Roman Church withdrew its opposition to
Copernicanism well before the 18th century, but formalized that withdrawal
c.1835 by removing his book from the banned book list. It is also my
understanding that the sum of the lengthy Council of Trent some 450 years ago
was that obvious contradictions between what the Scriptures teach and what the
Church teaches are to be resolved by the faithful accepting what the Church
teaches.
Believing these understandings to be a matter of historical record, the
puzzlement I have is why any more credence should be given to any given
Scripture (e.g., the geocentist parts) than, say, the parts that deny the
Churches’ Mariolatry doctrine (or any of a dozen others). How can one project
a credible witness for the truth on one subject (stationary earth) while
attributing belief in that subject because they are “fundamentalist believers
in scripture as writ”, while rejecting or adding to or subtracting
from other “scripture as writ”? How can the one claim one portion of Scripture
must be viewed as truth by a system which blatantly alters Scripture and
justifies the alteration with the words of men outside of Scripture?
God knows men’s hearts, of course, and no uncertainty remains in His Judgment
as to whether He has kept His Word inerrant, sufficient, and infallible. Which
is more apt to please Him and produce truth: agreement with all of His Word “as
holy writ”, or with some man made system which claims to be the only true
representative of His truth…when it is clear on the geocentrism doctrine alone
that no church—however “fundamentalist” it may claim to be—will stand up boldly
for a non-moving earth?
Marshall
Other related posts:
