The disparaging of geocentricity by other young-earth advocates may be helpful.
Conversely, many passages would support a flat earth and some suggest a rectangle (the four corners of the earth) if interpreted as a scientific description of the earth. The arguments for the sphericity of the earh may be easier to follow.
Although geocentrism can be obtained from various passages, if interpreted as scientific claims, much of the medieval support for geocentrism came from Greek views, e.g. the Platonic preference for circles over ovals. Remember that sunspots and lunar craters were unpopular, too, as "imperfections" in the heavenly realms. Geocentrism can thus be viewed as largely based on pagan rather than Biblical considerations at its root.
The concept of phenomenological language may be helpful. It is pefectly true that the appearance to a human observer on earth is that of a flat earth that is circled by the sun, moon, stars, etc. Thus, Biblical accounts describing things as looking this way are in fact quite accurate. It is the interpretation of the Biblical description as science that causes problems. (Note that the original author probably did not view his description as phenomenological). A couple of more tangible examples: The hyrax, in the list of unclean animals, is described as chewing cud. Although its behavior looks like this, it does not really do so. Bats are listed under the heading of unclean birds. They are actually mammals. However, Moses was using a practical, rather than a modern biological, classification.
Dr. David Campbell
NEW ADDRESS AS OF 8/21/00
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
email@example.com, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"He had discovered an unknown bivalve, forming a new genus"-E. A. Poe, The Gold Bug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 10:48:19 EDT