Geocentrism: Appearance of Phenomena?

[Scrawly]

I was having a brief discussion with a Twebber on the issue of seeming geocentrism found in the Bible. He further went on to explain that the "problem passages" (Josh. 10:12-13, etc.) are merely what we refer to as "appearance of phenomena" - similar to how we speak today when we refer to the sun rising and setting. This particular member also advocates a "plain reading of the Scriptures". I basically do too, however, I was curious as to when this doctrine of "appearance of phenomena" historically originated because I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever to question geocentrism if we merely utilized a "plain reading" of the text. He stated that he was not interested in the historic development of this doctrine...

So when did this "appearance of phenomena" doctrine originate? When geocentrism was the reigning scientific model, was there any theologian(s) that stepped up and challenged that view based upon the plain reading of the text utilizing the doctrine of appearance of phenomena?

Thanks.

[KingsGambit]

I don't think it was questioned on theological grounds alone, simply because nobody really had a reason to question it. It's not like there are any Bible verses that flat out say "the Earth is round", that wasn't at all relevant to its original readers, for the same reason why no Bible verses mention Neptune, radiation, or sound waves. In a time when the vast majority of people rarely traveled beyond where they were born, it wouldn't have mattered what the Earth was like.

This does raise an interesting question: What do you expect from Scripture? Do you expect God to show off and make prophecies about future scientific discoveries to show how smart He is, or perhaps might it primarily deal with events and concerns germane to the lives of those living at the time?

[Scrawly]

I don't think it was questioned on theological grounds alone, simply because nobody really had a reason to question it. It's not like there are any Bible verses that flat out say "the Earth is round", that wasn't at all relevant to its original readers, for the same reason why no Bible verses mention Neptune, radiation, or sound waves. In a time when the vast majority of people rarely traveled beyond where they were born, it wouldn't have mattered what the Earth was like.

This does raise an interesting question: What do you expect from Scripture? Do you expect God to show off and make prophecies about future scientific discoveries to show how smart He is, or perhaps might it primarily deal with events and concerns germane to the lives of those living at the time?

Right but the fact of the matter is that the Bible seems to teach geocentrism. The appearance of phenomena doctrine counters that objection, but was that doctrine formulated in the days of geocentrism utilizing a plain reading of the text or was it formulated relatively recently because the science demanded that those passages be exegeted differently?

[KingsGambit]

Right but the fact of the matter is that the Bible seems to teach geocentrism. The appearance of phenomena doctrine counters that objection, but was that doctrine formulated in the days of geocentrism utilizing a plain reading of the text or was it formulated relatively recently because the science demanded that those passages be exegeted differently?

Probably the latter, but is this really a problem? I don't see anybody going around and claiming that the word "sunrise" is scientifically inaccurate.

[Scrawly]

Probably the latter, but is this really a problem? I don't see anybody going around and claiming that the word "sunrise" is scientifically inaccurate.

I agree. Although it then seems that this "plain reading of the text" method should loosen its grip? But then what are we left with other than "that's an interesting way of looking at it"....

[KingsGambit]

Although it then seems that this "plain reading of the text" method should loosen its grip?

I think it should - it's usually a very good way of reading texts, but it's not an absolute requirement not was it ever promised. (Even Peter admitted that some things that Paul had to write were hard to understand, so yes, we may have to do a little digging.)

[Scrawly]

I don't think it was questioned on theological grounds alone, simply because nobody really had a reason to question it. It's not like there are any Bible verses that flat out say "the Earth is round", that wasn't at all relevant to its original readers, for the same reason why no Bible verses mention Neptune, radiation, or sound waves. In a time when the vast majority of people rarely traveled beyond where they were born, it wouldn't have mattered what the Earth was like.

This does raise an interesting question: What do you expect from Scripture? Do you expect God to show off and make prophecies about future scientific discoveries to show how smart He is, or perhaps might it primarily deal with events and concerns germane to the lives of those living at the time?

Yes, and it seems clear that those living at that time thought the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Which is not a major issue, but it does become an issue when we start to deal with inspiration. We can always say God works through fallible human beings with finite, cultural-bound knowledge but the difficulty emerges when we ask ourselves precisely what role God is playing.

[Scrawly]

I would also like to ask those that advocate a plain reading of the text to tell me why they abandoned that method when heliocentrism became the dominant view. Because clearly a plain reading of the text would affirm geocentrism and the science of those days just reaffirmed what the bible taught for most people, including John Calvin and his contemporaries. Calvin held to geocentrism not because of the science of his day, but because of a plain reading of the text. This doctrine of appearance of phenomena surfaced only after geocentrism became untenable. Therefore, for me, those that hold onto a plain reading of the text when interpreting Genesis to combat TE simply loose all credibility.

[RBerman]

I would also like to ask those that advocate a plain reading of the text to tell me why they abandoned that method when heliocentrism became the dominant view. Because clearly a plain reading of the text would affirm geocentrism and the science of those days just reaffirmed what the bible taught for most people, including John Calvin and his contemporaries. Calvin held to geocentrism not because of the science of his day, but because of a plain reading of the text. This doctrine of appearance of phenomena surfaced only after geocentrism became untenable. Therefore, for me, those that hold onto a plain reading of the text when interpreting Genesis to combat TE simply loose all credibility.

It is not the case that a plain reading of the text affirms geocentrism. Geocentrism by its nature adopts a point of view external to the earth, somewhere "out there," to comment on the relative positions of the various heavenly bodies. The Bible never appeals to such a viewpoint but consistently describes everything in terms of the way that it appears from earth. However, those who adopted geocentrism, the prevailing scientific view for millenia, interpreted the Scriptures in the light of their scientific beliefs, falsely concluding that the Scriptures taught geocentrism.

Surely there's no debate that phrases like "sunrise" and "rose from the dead" describe phenomena. The question is: What phenomenon would "God said, 'Let there be light,'" be describing, if not God actually speaking?

[Scrawly]

It is not the case that a plain reading of the text affirms geocentrism.

Really? Because if I read Joshua 10:12-13 with no knowledge of any science, the text would plainly state that the sun moves/revolves around the earth. Utilizing a plain reading of the text of Joshua 10:12-13, I would never come to the conclusion that the sun doesn't move - espeically when the text plainly states that Joshua commanded the sun to stop, and the sun therefore stopped.

Geocentrism by its nature adopts a point of view external to the earth, somewhere "out there," to comment on the relative positions of the various heavenly bodies. The Bible never appeals to such a viewpoint but consistently describes everything in terms of the way that it appears from earth.

OK, that makes sense thanks.

However, those who adopted geocentrism, the prevailing scientific view for millenia, interpreted the Scriptures in the light of their scientific beliefs, falsely concluding that the Scriptures taught geocentrism.

Wouldn't you have adopted that view too, especially since it fits so snug with a plain reading of the text? Was there any theologian in that time that stated geocentrism shouldn't be accepted because the Biblical texts that appear to support geocentrism are merely appearance of phenomena texts?

Surely there's no debate that phrases like "sunrise" and "rose from the dead" describe phenomena. The question is: What phenomenon would "God said, 'Let there be light,'" be describing, if not God actually speaking?

The question is also one that has still not been answered: When was this "appearance of phenomena" doctrine first articulated?

[Catholicity]

[RBerman]

Really? Because if I read Joshua 10:12-13 with no knowledge of any science, the text would plainly state that the sun moves/revolves around the earth. Utilizing a plain reading of the text of Joshua 10:12-13, I would never come to the conclusion that the sun doesn't move - espeically when the text plainly states that Joshua commanded the sun to stop, and the sun therefore stopped.

And from the perspective of the earthly viewer, that's exactly what happened in Joshua: The sun did not move, where "move" means "change angle from the horizon, across the sky from sunrise to noon to sunset."

Wouldn't you have adopted that view too, especially since it fits so snug with a plain reading of the text? Was there any theologian in that time that stated geocentrism shouldn't be accepted because the Biblical texts that appear to support geocentrism are merely appearance of phenomena texts?

If I grew up in a Muslim country, I would probably adopt a Muslim view of things. That wouldn't make it correct, of course. If I grew up in the middle ages, I would accept medieval geocentric cosmology and wrongly apply it to the Bible, just like Christians in medieval times actually did.

The question is also one that has still not been answered: When was this "appearance of phenomena" doctrine first articulated?

Dunno. As I said to you in private messages, that question is unhelpful in figuring out what's true. The history of theology is distinct from theology itself.

[Scrawly]

And from the perspective of the earthly viewer, that's exactly what happened in Joshua: The sun did not move, where "move" means "change angle from the horizon, across the sky from sunrise to noon to sunset."

Mmmm...OK.

If I grew up in a Muslim country, I would probably adopt a Muslim view of things. That wouldn't make it correct, of course. If I grew up in the middle ages, I would accept medieval geocentric cosmology and wrongly apply it to the Bible, just like Christians in medieval times actually did.

I agree, but the point I am trying to make is that if we utilize a plain reading of the text without any scientific knowledge, I simply don't know where this doctrine of "appearance of phenomena" would come from because I would certainly interpret Joshua 10:12-13 (and other seeming geocentric passages) literally due to my "plain reading of the text" methodology.

Dunno. As I said to you in private messages, that question is unhelpful in figuring out what's true. The history of theology is distinct from theology itself.

Yes, but my point here is that I would think that our modern scientific findings would inform our interpretation to the extent whereby we would be able to properly interpret the scriptures and thus formulate doctrines such as appearance of phenomena. If we hold fast to the plain reading of the text without any external scientific influence, well, it just seems more than obvious to me that we would think that the earth stands as still as a pillar.

[KingsGambit]

If we hold fast to the plain reading of the text without any external scientific influence, well, it just seems more than obvious to me that we would think that the earth stands as still as a pillar.

And what if this is true?

[Scrawly]

And what if this is true?

If the earth doesn't move? Then geocentrism is true and the plain reading of the text is vindicated.