|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geocentric model article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
- 1 Text in footnotes
- 2 Other cultures
- 3 Occam's razor
- 4 Suggestion: Name this article "Geocentrism"
- 5 Lutheranism, Missouri Synod
Text in footnotes
We should not be bolding text to emphasise it. A lot of the text is direct quotation but it's unclear how much. Also, should some of this be in the article rather than just in the references? The same problem and material is at Flat Earth. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. The reference section should be split off from notes into separate section. Bolding is not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixes done. The notes section needs to be looked at, such extensive quoting is not necessary. If a reader is interested in researching the original text of the source the reference points to it. Only when explanation is needed for the context should notes be used. Some of the notes may constitute COPYVIO. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Occam's razor favors the simplest answer. The Old Testament authors simply believed the earth is fixed and wrote what they believed. The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves. 
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." 
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." 
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." 
1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
The Bible and science
- The Bible doesn't say the earth orbits and rotates in ways impossible for humans to change.
- The Bible says the earth has firm foundations and isn't moving.
Believers try to reconcile the immovable earth in the Bible with the moving earth that modern Science shows is real. This involves complex unprovable assumptions. Remember Occam's razor tells us we should prefer simple explanations with few assumptions rather than complex explanations with many assumptions.
- Believers must assume the Bible is divinely inspired while other supposed sacred texts from other religions that contradict the Bible are false Superstition. There is no reason to treat the Bible differently from other supposed sacred texts.
- Believers must assume the inspiring Deity chose ambiguous language open to misinterpretation. Especially before Heliocentrism came to be widely known the Bible seemed to show a fixed earth. Why should a deity go to the trouble of inspiring a sacred text and leave the language unclear?
Unsurprisingly believers end up with complex explanations for references to a fixed earth  These explanations are less plausible.
- As shown above the Bronze Age and Iron Age people who wrote the Old Testament didn't know the earth moves and the simplest explanation is that they wrote what they mistakenly believed.
- The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves.
- The simplest explanation is that the Bible is mythology similar to other Mythology of the time and that the Bible is untrue. 
- There are passages in the Bible that are clearly figurative and everyone accepts that. Biblical inerrants-literalists-inerrants made exceptions for texts which are clearly figurative. One could, I suppose that the places where the Bible says that the Earth is flat is one those exceptions because there is long history of Bible-readers who accepted the Earth being spherical. But that excuse is not possible for geocentrism because nobody, until the rise of modern science, noticed that the geocentric texts were figurative. It impossible to claim that Biblical geocentrism is "clearly" figurative if so many people missed that. The most one can say is that authors misunderstood their audience - everyone for 2000 years! TomS TDotO (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
References and footnotes
- Ancient Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos proposed a Heliocentric theory but he lived in a different area and well after most of the Old Testament was written. Historians know of no earlier heliocentric theories than the theory of Aristarchus. In any case Aristarchus didn't have much of a following and heliocentrism didn't become popular till Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler made their discoveries millennia later.
- One thing that's really hard to explain is why in the 21st century so many people still take seriously texts written by Bronze Age and Iron Age people who didn't even understand the dynamics of the Solar system.
I wish I could add this to the article as I'm sure it's logical. Does anyone know a secondary source that says anything similar that I can use as a reference. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion: Name this article "Geocentrism"
Pretty much like Heliocentrism isn't called Heliocentric model. I know this may have been suggested in the past but still...
- Agree but for a different reason. "Geocentric model" suggests there is a single model, when this article discusses a variety of different geocentric models. "Geocentrism" seems to avoid the implication of a single model. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Lutheranism, Missouri Synod
The statement "However, in the 1902 Theological Quarterly, A. L. Graebner claimed that the synod had no doctrinal position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any scientific model, unless it were to contradict Scripture. He stated that any possible declarations of geocentrists within the synod did not set the position of the church body as a whole." This is provided with a cite to the relevant issue of Theological Quarterly, which someone had annotated with a "failed verification" tag.
I removed the tag. It's true those exact words do not appear in the cite, but the statement was not marked as a quotation. I just read the article myself and it seems a fair summary. The only reason I'm not giving relevant quotations from the source is that it's rather prolix in an early 20th century kind of way and it's too much typing to reproduce, but the author makes it very clear that 1) Pamphlets advocating geocentrism were published in a private capacity only, regardless of an author's connection to the Synod, and 2) it's outside the Synod's purview to teach anything on scientific topics. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)