Fixed Earth: Setting the Record Straight

Jim West pointed out to me a web site called Fixed Earth, defending geocentrism from its opponents (who range from NASA to Madonna, apparently). It nicely illustrates that there are positions that are far more “literalistic” in their approach to the Bible, and thus far more ridiculous, but it is helpful to be able to ask those who claim they are interpreting the Bible literally why they don’t hold those sorts of views.

Ultimately, longing to have a fixed earth reflects the fundamentalist longing to recover that feeling from childhood when you just knew you were the center of the universe, and that parents, life, angels, God and all that exists revolve around you. It isn’t an expression of theocentrism but anthropocentrism and ultimately egocentrism.

A passage from the Bible that is mentioned on the site, however, is worth noting, since it makes it somewhat more likely that there was a historical Joshua, even though he clearly did not do most of the things attributed to him in the book that bears his name. According to one of the sources used by the author of Joshua, the Book of Jashar, Joshua addressed himself to the sun and moon. Since the author of the Book of Joshua opposed the worship of the sun and moon, and in his editorial comment makes it the LORD who stops the sun and moon in response to Joshua, it is clear that there was an earlier story in which the sun and moon were addressed as the Sun and Moon. How early this source was, and whether it is based on early historical traditions, we cannot tell, but at least it is clear that Joshua is not merely a figure invented from scratch in the time of king Josiah.

Also worth noting is the old story that NASA ‘found’ a missing day because of Joshua, which like most rumors and legends refuses to die out. The story is utterly false, as well as nonsensical if one thinks about it logically even for a few moments. The fact that it continues to circulate should give pause to anyone who tries to argue for the historicity of information in the Gospels on the basis that “eyewitnesses were still alive who could have set the record straight”. Just try setting the record straight about anything. It is harder than it sounds!

  • Jim

    Well said. If Butler’s team played as well as you think, they’d have made it to the final 4.;-)

  • Gordon J. Glover

    I love the way and call AiG and ICR to task for “selling out” to Copernicism. Of course, they are correct. If you want to be a consistent “Biblical” scientist, then you can’t simply pick and choose what bible science you want to believe in. In fact, the biblical case for a fixed earth is far stronger than 6-day creation. There are some 67 verses that specifically state the earth is a rest and the heavens are in motion around it. My favorite quote is from the Biblical Astronomer website which says, “If we can’t believe God when He writes of the ‘rising of the sun’ how can we believe Him when He writes of the ‘rising of the son’?And I guess a mustard seed really is smaller than a poppy seed and the heart is really the seat of human conciousness (as opposed to the brain) and there really are windows in the firmament from which is parcipitates via the heavenly storehouses, etc… Ironically, both of these groups refuse to accept a flat earth — which itself is explicity referred to some 35 times in the scriptures. So even groups like this arbitrarily pick and choose what passages are literal.

  • Richard

    Ridiculous? What is ridiculous is the claim that with a telescope one can see 6 trillion multiplied by 13 billion miles away. I suppose that would be like an atom sized man being able to see to the ends of the earth. Not to mention the vast amount of such like unproven claims that are equally “ridiculous”. Faith in supposed “technology” is not science.

    • James F. McGrath

      I’m not sure why you choose to put things this way. If what our aided eyes can see is in doubt, then theological claims are by comparison even harder to demonstrate.

  • Richard

    Egocentric is the belief in oneself rather than in a supreme being, namely, God (someone greater than you). Belief that God loves one and that one is worthy is not pride, but an appropriate sense of worth, for someone who is made in the image of God – because the truth is that God made the world for man. Pride is the refusal of the knowledge of God. But if you want to think of yourself as an insignificant, subatomic particle in a vast universe, begotten from a slimy sea and having as your ultimate father, an amoeba, then that is your choice.

    • James F. McGrath

      You seem not to accept the implications of your own comment. If God’s love is what gives us worth, then how is it relevant whether he made human beings from dirt or from earlier life forms? And how is refusal to accept the testimony of the work of God’s hands anything other than a refusal to acknowledge God?

      • Mark

        God wants us to know and believe in the truth. So if you want to believe that you evolved from an earlier life form, when it’s not true, you are letting yourself be deceived. God made man and the animals after their own kind.

        • James F. McGrath

          The problem with this claim is that it is elevating ancient human words about creation, which themselves seem clearly to reflect ancient understandings of the natural world and to include poetic elements, over the evidence from what God actually made. And so it is you who are letting yourself be deceived, and rejecting the Creator’s own testimony in doing so.