In this issue we look at several question which have been asked by
readers in the past several months. Where on person asks a question,
many are probably also wondering, at least, that is what I've discovered
as a teacher. So here goes:
Q.A few months back a reader wrote and asked: “If it is true that the
earth neither rotates on its axis nor revolves about the sun, then how
come the north and south poles and the polar caps exist? The north/south
poles and their polar caps exist because the earth rotates on its axis.”
A. This is wrong. The polar caps exist because of the relative revolution
of earth and sun; rotation plays a relatively minor part in their existence.
In the geocentric universe, the firmament (which has in it the sun, moon
and stars) has two motions, namely: rotation and revolution. Firstly, it
must rotate once a day in order for atomic matter to exist (the proof of
that statement is in a paper which will be sent as a supplement to members
later this year).
Secondly, because of the nature (experimentally observed properties)
of light, it seems to follow from the twistor theory of physics that the
universe must also have a revolutionary motion with a period of one year
and a radius of 93,000,000 miles. I'm currently working on the proof of
that, but if I succeed, then the motion of the universe (with the sun inside
it and moving with it) about the earth will be a helix with a period of one
day and a north-south period of one year. In other words, on June 21, the
region north of the Arctic circle will be in the sun all day while the region
south of the Antarctic circle will be in the night, etc. One-and-a-half
turns of the helix can be seen on page 90 of Geocentricity. Also see the
figure on page 334, which only shows the yearly motion, and page 338
which shows the same “orbit” shared by the stars.
Q.A certain Mr. R. claimed that: “Investigation reveals that if the earth
is still then the Sun. Moon and planets must all travel in a helix that terminates
at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. … [And] were the moon
to do the helix it would present 23.5 degrees more of its polar regions
than it does unless the Moon nodded in perfect unison with its helix.” Secondly, Mr. R. is modeling the annual component of the helix as a
rotation instead of a revolution. Consider for a moment that the rotational
pole of the sun closely points to the ecliptic pole (the pole of the
earth-sun orbit). The upper portion of Figure 1, on the next page, shows
the sun's position relative to the earth on December 21 at lower left and
June 21 at upper right. Note that there is no “looking over the pole”
beyond what little would happen by shifting from the earth's equator to
the earth's north pole.
Mr. R. assumes that the sun's north pole rotates around the earth's
north pole, as shown in the lower half of the figure, but that is not the
case. That is why we have two terms: revolution and rotation. If the one
could be modeled by the other, we would only have one word, not two.
There is no way that a rotation can be modeled by a rotation or vice
versa.
A.This is a very subtle point, but it fails on two counts. First of all, the
moon's orbit is geocentric, not heliocentric; and so it would not be expected
to participate in any 23.5° effect.
If Mr. R. still has trouble seeing that, ask him which is correct in the
heliocentric system, the first figure or the second? (Just tilt the figure
clockwise 23.5 degrees to horizontal and you have the heliocentric explanation
for the seasons as shown in many introductory astronomy
texts.)
Figure 1
Q. A certain Mr. S. assailed us with a slew of charges, most of which have been answered many times before in these pages and in my books. One does deserve mention and that deals with the cause of Christ: doesn't geocentricity bring shame to the gospel and doesn't it diminish the respectability of Christians in the eyes of unbelievers?
A.As for hurting the credibility of Christianity, it has no credibility in the world in the first place. Are you looking to be friends with this world? Don't you know that the friendship of this world, the acclaim of this world, is enmity with God? Why do you seek it?
About 1976 the Humanist Magazine published an issue devoted entirely to creationism. A couple of the authors wrote that a good humanist tactic against creationists would be to insist that if they take the 24-hour days literally, that they should take the geocentric verses literally, too. Although the humanists know it, they refuse to do it. Why? Probably because the physicists and astrophysicists among them know that the universe at least “looks” geocentric if it really isn't geocentric. If the Christians ever did accept their geocentric heritage, the scientific cat would be out of the bag and the contrast between true science and ”science falsely so called” would be evident to all.
Q.Also in that letter, as well as a couple of others, the matter of Hugh
Ross arises. Can such a kind, gentleman as Hugh Ross be wrong?
A.As for Hugh Ross, if I believed half of what Ross believes, I would
still be a stark-raving atheist. I know that Ross is a nice guy and a
gentleman, but I also know that he cannot understand why no one
wouldn't believe a nice guy like him. One is saved by grace, not by
works. “Gentlemen” rarely have the truth as seen, for example, in the
rude prophets Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah and Moses. Even Jesus would not
be called a “nice guy” or a gentleman in Christian circles (let alone the
world) today.
Why do I say such unkind things about Ross? The reason I became and atheist at university was because I searched for truth. To me, it seemed that science was on the frontier of truth, not Christianity. The reason for my view was quite simple, actually. Take the Copernican revolution, for example. The Christians said the universe was geocentric until science showed otherwise. Then, 100 years later the “Christian” world said “Aha, the Bible knew it all along, we just interpreted it wrongly.” Then along came evolution and 30 to 80 years later the ”Christian” world followed with “Aha, the Bible knew it all along, we just misinterpreted the word 'day.'” If scientists knew the truth 30 or more years before Christian theologians, why should I pay any attention to the latter?
So it was that as a seeker for truth, when I read the Bible for myself, I became a born-again Christian of the sola scriptura kind, because, by being so deeply steeped in the sciences, I knew the complete lack of proofs for both heliocentrism and evolutionism. I recognized that the Bible was right after all, and that science was wrong on both counts, and that the Johny-come-lately theologians were about as Christian as Mickey Mouse. Hugh Ross is one of these latecomers. So, to me, Hugh Ross is either a scientific and Biblical illiterate or he is a compromiser who fears man's scoffing. Nice guy or not, he would have shipwrecked my faith in God if I'd read and believed what he says about the Bible.
The following letter came from a reader, Mr. F. G., who not only suffered almost the same fate at the hands of Hugh Ross, but also found some unusual science in Revelation 8:12.A number of months ago I received in the mail a brochure for one of Hugh Ross' books in which one of the endorsers was a theologian with whom I am personally acquainted and who I respect very highly. This endorsement caused me to entertain serious doubts about the young urn verse model that I have believed in since I first became a Christian back in 1979. They were doubts like I never experienced before but they were also short lived because the Lord gave me a very strong prompting to look up a verse in the book of Revelation that completely took array my doubts. When I showed the verse to a number of creationists With scientific and theological backgrounds they all said that they had never noticed the verse before in the way it relates to speed of light issues. I want to quote the verse and then give the same observations that I did with them:
Revelation 8:12 “And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars, so that the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.”First, the trumpet judgment is a future event and therefore has yet to sound. Second, it says that the objects themselves are smitten, not the light traveling between them and the earth, nor the atmosphere. And third, it says that all objects concerned are smitten together; with simultaneous and instantaneous results as viewed from the inhabitants of the earth, i.e. around the globe. In considering these things, it is interesting that it takes light about 1.5 seconds to reach the earth from the moon, 8 minutes from the sun, and 4 years for the nearest star. For Ross and others who assert that billions of years must separate the creation of the stars and man in order to give the light time to travel the immense distances to reach him, they have no way of dealing naturalistically with the problems that arise from the verse. Their only way out is to say that it is a miracle but in doing so they are opening up the possibility of the contrary effect in Genesis 1 & 2. If God is going to smite the heavenly bodies with said results, He can certainly do the reverse in the beginning when He created them. The theory that billions of years are required between the first day of creation and the sixth evaporates into thin air. I also came upon another text that I hat not noticed before in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus says (10:6) “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” I saw clearly that billions of years just could not be inserted into that statement.