Then you should quote, cite and if possible link the details because I'm finding nothing of the sort. Catholic scholars have had to deal with this on the defensive for centuries, from one contemporary Catholic apologist:
The modern age of science began in 1543 when Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish Canon, published his epochal On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs. The popular view is that Copernicus “discovered” that the earth revolves around the sun. Actually, the notion is at least as old as the ancient Greeks. But the geocentric theory, endorsed by Aristotle and given mathematical plausibility by Ptolemy, was the prevailing model until Copernicus. It was given additional credibility by certain passages of Scripture, which seemed to affirm the mobility of the sun and the fixity of the earth. Most early Church Fathers simply took it for granted; but they weren't really interested in scientific explanations of the cosmos. As St. Ambrose wrote, “To discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come.”
The Galileo Affair GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON
You are distorting the facts and if there is anything like Geocentric defenses of outdated paradigms it's Darwinism.
Great quote, good scholarly overview of the Galileo affair. I don't see how you think it helps your case though. That article even tells us heliocentrism meant the church had to abandon the literal sense of the geocentric passages, which is exactly my point.
There is no question that if the debate over heliocentrism had remained purely scientific, it would have been shrugged off by the Church authorities. But in 1614, Galileo felt that he had to answer the objection that the new science contradicted certain passages of Scripture. There was, for example, Joshua's command that the sun stand still. Why would Joshua do that if, as Galileo asserted, the sun didn't move at all? Then there were Psalms 92 (“He has made the world firm, not to be moved.”
and 103 (“You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever.”
, not to mention the famous verse in
Ecclesiastes. These are not obscure passages, and their literal sense would obviously have to be abandoned if the Copernican system were true.
The Ambrose quote is interesting too, it is from a work on Genesis and it talking about another cosmological question of the time whether the earth was suspended in space, or on the waters. He says that questions about science have nothing to do with Salvation.
No Biblical doctrine was threatened, they simply used a short list of isolated texts taken out of context. You are really getting this twisted and I'm bored this rhetorical ploy secular philosophers relish.
It is interesting, I was just thinking you are confusing two very different issues about Copernicus and the geocentric passages. It took me a while to figure out why you would actually post a passage like Johnson's as if it actually answered my argument. It sounded like you were mixing my point about the church responding to new science by reexamining traditional interpretations, with the secular antichristian argument that the church and the bible are against science and persecute scientists. Now I see you really have mixed them up.
The article you quote makes it clear at these are not 'isolated texts taken out of context' and that their literal interpretation did have to be abandoned when scientific evidence supported heliocentrism.
I take it from switching to your a priori line about evolution, that you cannot deal with my point.
You aren't making a point, your just talking in circles.
Fine drop it. I will take the point as conceded.
This point has been answered repeatedly, the early church fathers didn't care about astronomy they simply took for granted what the passages said.
No like everybody else at the time, they were geocentrists, but their interpretations of the geocentric passages were literal interpretations. They did not think geocentrism was an important issue, but when they read the geocentric passages it is clear they understood them as literally describing a the sun, moon and stars rotating around a fixed earth. You can see a few examples in the next post.
No, when you twist Romans 5 to make it look like Adam is a figure of speech you are showing your true colors.
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)
In Paul's most elaborate exposition of the Gospel and justification by faith his is explicit that sin can by one man, Adam:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:13,14)
This is the reason given by the Apostle to the Gentiles why justification by faith is necessary in the first place.
What a bizarre twist in a line of discussion
Lets look back...
Mark: Inbreeding is not a problem until bottlenecks constrict the gene flow. It happens over generations and the deleterious effects are only multiplied as the mutations accumulate.
Assyrian: Except the bible never tells us the reason incest is forbidden is inbreeding. If that is the only reason, and incest isn't wickedness as the bible says, then it should be all right for brother and sister to marry now, as long as they don't have any children. Would you be ok with that?
Mark: Again, I'm not going to argue this in circles. Adam and Eve would have had pristine genomes. The reason that inbreeding is bad is because it causes bottlenecks and mutations accumulate.
Assyrian: Except the bible doesn't say that is the reason incest is wrong, and it condemns incest that doesn't lead to inbreeding 1Cor 5:1.
Mark: Look, you have ignored my answer to the question so I won't bother with your rationalization of the passages in question.
Assyrian: If you thought I missed something you could repeat the point, and dismissing my scripture based answer as 'rationalization' simply means you don't want to deal with it.
Mark: No, when you twist Romans 5 to make it look like Adam is a figure of speech you are showing your true colors...
Suddenly the argument about Cain and incest which you could not defend twists around and is switched with an argument about about Romans 5. And you accuse me of ignoring your arguments.
OK so lets look at Romans instead.
No, when you twist Romans 5 to make it look like Adam is a figure of speech you are showing your true colors.
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)
In Paul's most elaborate exposition of the Gospel and justification by faith his is explicit that sin can by one man, Adam:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:13,14)
This is the reason given by the Apostle to the Gentiles why justification by faith is necessary in the first place.
Paul does tell us why justification by faith is necessary.
Death passed to all men because all sinned. We all need to be justified because we all sinned.
I really don't understand how you can keep a straight face as you write that I "twist Romans 5 to make it look like Adam is a figure of speech" and then quote Paul telling us he is using Adam as a figure of Christ "...after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come." Who is twisting Paul's writings?
Your arguments deny the vital Christian doctrine and I would oppose anyone who did this, regardless of their religious affiliation. I don't know why you think I hate you and I assure you I'm anything but bitter. Wiccans and Buddhists that want to try to bend the Scriptures to mean something the author did not intend will get the exact same reaction.
Sure I deny Original Sin, it is a fifth century doctrine based on a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin. But it is not just me and Original Sin, you spit your venom at all TEs, even though many here have told you repeatedly that they do accept Original Sin.
You have been refuted on Biblical grounds for you constant distortion of the clear teaching of Scripture. I supported my defense as being both theologically vital and at odds with New Testament truth. Your attempt to equivocate Heliocentric astronomy with Biblical Creationism has likewise failed to stand up to close scrutiny. I didn't tell you what arguments to make, I simply answered them with Scriptural and secular source material. Now that you can't prove your points you have descended into the inevitable ad hominem fallacy of two false assumptions you pretend you don't make.
Claiming to refute an argument and actually doing it are two different things.
Yea or better yet let's like atheistic philosophers dictate the proper interpretation of Paul's writings.
Which of us has been quoting the atheist and who got his idea of Paul speaking of Adam figuratively from Paul?
I believe strongly that the First Amendment is essentially a protection of religion and have never support creationism in the classroom. The point you managed to dodge was that Creationism is rejected for being religious but it doesn't stop there.
I showed it was completely irrelevant. I am Irish, if the American constitutional law says Creationism is religious and should be kept out schools it has nothing to do with me or the theory of evolution. Creationism should be kept out of science class because it is not science.
TEs go so far as to say it's not Christian or Biblical and that is a bold faced lie. Original sin is directly tied to the creation of Adam and justification by faith. I don't care about whales, birds or dinosaurs, New Testament theology on the other hand is out of bounds for evolutionists.
You should really read the thread before you make statements like that. The OP said Creationism is Unbiblical and two TEs myself and Mallon disagreed with the claim. As for NT theology, if your 'evolutionists' are Christians it is most certainly not out of bounds for them. How dare you tell fellow believers New Testament theology is out of bounds? Anyway, as I told you before, I left the doctrine of Original Sin behind long before I became a TE, back when I left the Catholic Church, because I could not see it in scripture. So far you have completely failed to provide any evidence Original Sin is actually a NT doctrine.
Unless it contradicts evolution, then it's ok right?
Come up with the evidence evolution is wrong and not only will I stand for it, so will the Nobel Prize committee.
The problem Creationists have is they cannot conveive the possibility that their literal interpetation of Genesis could ever be mistaken and contradicted by science, in just the same way the literal reading of the geocentric passages was contradicted by Copernicus. Nor apparently they grasp the fact that the bible and Christianity did not fall apart when a mistaken literal interpretation was shown to be wrong. God is bigger than our mistaken interpretations and he can make us stand when our mistaken understandings fall.
There you go equivocating again. Clearly heliocentric astronomy is connected to no essential doctrine, original sin is.
1) A doctrine no one knew about until it was thought up based on a bad Latin translation in the 5th century is hardly an essential doctrine.
2) The problems with Original Sin it has nothing to do with evolution and many TEs accept Augustine's doctrine.
3) The only argument for Creationism is a literal interpretation of the bible and it is here we see the parallels with geocentrism. When the literal interpretation is found to be wrong as both the geocentric and young earth interpretations have been, what the church needs to do is go back to the bible and see where they went wrong, see if there are any other ways they should have read the passages instead.
I don't care what you claim to be and I deliberately avoided discussing the Bible with TEs for a long time. I have changed my mind now since you have put your theology on the line and your compromise is evident and obvious.
Edit: I see busterdog's been suggesting you tone it down, lets leave it at that.
That was not the question, I committed Proverbs to memory years ago and even turned it into a rhyme I called a lyrical paraphrase. The point being I know what the passage says, I'm asking you who the fool in Proverbs is.
And I gave you an answer. You have the classic form of proverb here the parallel contrast, the wise and the fool. You can learn about wisdom in contrast with what is foolish and learn what is foolish in contrast with wisdom. The wise listen and add to their learning, the fool despises wisdom. But interestingly in this exposition of what it is to be wise it includes learning to understand the proverbs and parables, the riddles or dark sayings of scripture. The fool in contrast will despise learning about parables and figure in scripture.
Are you sure you wanted to bring that passage up?
