How Figurative is the Geocentricity Question?

a response to James B. Jordan by Philip Stott

In the Spring 1993 edition of Contra Mundum James B. Jordan published an essay "The Geocentricity Question", which has found wide acceptance. Jordan’s essay was the driving influence behind a similar dismissal of geocentricity by Garry North ["Geocentricity - Geostationism: The Flat Earth Temptation"]. Both portray the notion that geocentricity is on a par with a flat earth...

If a serious search is actually being undertaken it might be helpful to ask a slightly different question. Are there passages which NECESSARILY IMPLY a shape for the earth? I believe there could be. We are told in Luke 17 of Jesus’ second coming that it will occur as lightning flashes from one end of the heaven to the other, or as Paul put it, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye". Now Jesus says of that moment (Luke 17:34-36) "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

An implication could be that for some (grinding meal, working in the field) it is daytime, while for others (those in bed) it is night at the same instant. That fits well with a spherical form for the earth, not with any kind of flat shape. So unless one is going to propose unusual laws of physics, like light traveling in tight curves rather than approximately in straight lines, one could tentatively conclude that if the Bible does point to a shape for the earth, a sphere is considerably more likely than a flat square...

Historically we find that as soon as geocentricity was discarded, the view that the earth was not in any way special lead to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that life must exist elsewhere. Giordano Bruno, for example, one of the first to accept Copernicus’ idea soon convinced himself that there must be vast numbers of inhabited worlds in the universe. This immediately raised theological questions. If God created intelligent beings elsewhere, did they also fall into sin? If so did Christ have to die for them? Has He been crucified multiple times on multiple planets?

Apart from such obvious theological considerations, it was specifically the issue of geocentricity which led to the secularisation of science...

Until scientists convinced the world that geocentricity was a primitive, foolish idea contradicted by vast quantities of evidence, practically all Bible scholars took it as obvious that the Scriptures taught geocentricity - in exactly the same way that Bible scholars solidly upheld special creation until scientists convinced the world that there was a vast quantity of evidence proving evolution. In both cases there is actually none which can stand up to close scrutiny...

Christians are using the argument "the church was wrong about its interpretation of the Bible in pointing to geocentricity, could it not be equally wrong in its interpretation as far as evolution and chronology goes?"

I believe Jordan is mistaken:- geocentricity certainly is a theological issue, an important one, and it needs to be considered far more seriously than his essay suggests.

Philip R. Stott

click here for Full Article

back to YEC, Geocentrism, and Flat Earth Cosmology