Does Geocentrism Discredit Creationism?

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Does Geocentrism Discredit Creationism?, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Date of Gospels, Lita!

CMI : Does creation damage Christianity’s credibility?
Feedback, answer by Lita Cosner
http://creation.com/creation-damage-credibility

Does Geocentrism damage the credibility of Creation?

Think about it.

You may think Geocentrism is wrong and is not adressed by Joshua X or a certain Psalm ... your questioner thinks the same about creation.

What exactly in your own stance would become incredible to any seriously interested enquirer (as opposed to a scoffer!) by being shared by me who is (as you suppose, wrongly) also a Geocentric?

Neither more nor less than the witness for Resurrection your enquirer today is hopefully trying to give would be less credible for being shared by you and by me, if we were both wrong on how and when of Creation, and not just I wrong on Geocentrism.

A serious enquirer, as opposed to a scoffer using guilt by association like those trying to link us to Flat Earth Society - when the modern flat earth maps actually lacks the Biblical four corners, or has them less clearly marked than the Earth globe map I still believe in, by the way, let us take this point before going on about the serious enquirer:

My choice for Biblical four corners: NW either Alaska or Scandinavia/England/Iceland. SW either Cape Horn or Cape of Good Hope. NE Sakhalin/Japan. SE Singapore/New Guinea/Australia. Undecided whether Americas are an "earthsea" archipelago outside the earth (as in Continent) that has four corners or whether Atlantic is rather a huge ditch or pond within it. Modern Flat Earth maps would rather give three corners (all South Corners!) of the Earth : Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Singapore/New Guinea/Australia. Unless Ceylon and close part of India should count as a fourth South corner. So, the four corners' passages (after modern geographic discoveries) clearly speak for a round Earth sphere underlying both sea and land, while most landmass as opposed to sea is still in a space having four corners, opposed to either Pacific or Pacific/Americas/Atlantic outside these.

A serious enquirer, then, would very much know that a true position may very well be held by someone who is also holding a false one. To a serious enquirer, Resurrection of Christ cannot be undermined by Creationism - except insofar as he understands Creationist claims are involved in Christ's claim of being True God, through for instance Mark 10:6. But in that latter case, what would undermine his confidence in Resurrection as you well understand, is his belief in Evolution. And if you believe (as I think correctly) his belief in Evolution is erroneous, it is not your duty to share his error in order to bolster his confidence in Christ by glossing over Mark 10:6.

And if he were a serious enquirer, he would also understand that. He would not tell you or the questioner you got today that "I can nearly believe Christ was seen by Apostles, but these guys bring in Evolution being wrong, and I can't believe it anymore", he would say "I could nearly believe Christ was seen by the Apostles, and He was God, but then there is that matter of Mark 10:6 ..."

Similarily, if I maintain Resurrection of Christ is indeed linked also to Creationism through Mark 10:6, and Creationism to a "small" and not Heliocentric universe through Distant Starlight problem, a serious enquirer cannot loose confidence in you or more importantly in Genesis because of what I say, but if his Heliocentrism is incurable (depending on his own choices, ultimately), the one thing it can contribute to his disbelief is like "sure, stars could have been created on day four, but what about the distant starlight problem?"

He would, if honest, not complain to you about me. He might refer to my arguments in saying "HGL has shown that a very easy way to get around distant starlight problem is Geocentrism, I can't believe that due to gravitation, so I can't believe stars were created on day 4, 7200/6000 years ago".

If so, your job is not keeping me away from getting public attention, your job, if you are right and I am wrong, is showing how distant starlight problem can be solved without geocentrism. If it can be done at all, you might even be better off for referring to my arguments by quote and reference before rebutting in detail.

Think about it.

I am not complaining of how Flat Earth society is damaging my credibility as a Geocentric, but simply saying I place the four corners "of the mainland" or "of the dry land" are best identified on a globe, by now.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Saturday after Annunciation Feast
28-III-2015