A very simple question.

[MarcusHill]

I do'nt believe in what my neighbor's believe in fack they all think i'm crazy because i talk about the LORD and the inpending judgement day that will shortly take place.
Let's face it people we are very very near the return of the LORD and i'm not talking 100 years in the future i'm talking in the next few years it's that close.

Really? Define "few". Go on, put a number on it. You've already said it's less than a century. Less than 10 years? Maybe 20? Give us a number, so we can have a date to put in our diaries to come back to point and laugh at you.

 

[Beastt]

Thanks for digging those up. I am perfectly able to admit that the biblical authors believed the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth, and God used special creation to create life. In fact a literal reading of Genesis portrays a world view completely different from our own (e.g. the firmament).

However, I don't think the authors got their beliefs from God (their views represent those of society at the time). Also in the bible God never teaches these things. They are in chapters about a different subject written from the perspective of humans who had little scientific knowledge of the world.

And this world view is what was taught as the "word of God" until well after science showed it to be completely incorrect. And while it's easy to simply dismiss the biblical authors from their errors by proclaiming that they didn't get their beliefs from God, how far do you take this? It's pretty easy to wait until science shows something to be wrong in the Bible and then say, "Okay, well they didn't get that from God, but the rest came from God." But that's terribly dishonest. If they were inspired from God to write his message, did God not care how much entirely inaccurate information they mixed in? Why would God let that happen knowing that people who apply critical thought would instantly see that as an indication that none of the book has any connection with the supposed God it is claimed to be inspired by?

Whilst you are probably right can I ask who was executed?

Not only may you, but I'm glad you did. Probably the most notable individual would be an Italian Christian Monk by the name of Giordano Bruno. His act of heresy was to suggest that not only did the sun not orbit the Earth, but he went so far as to proclaim the strong likelihood that there were other planets around other stars and that some of those planets likely hosted life. As a result he was imprisoned by the church and his writings removed from public access. He was asked repeatedly to recant his beliefs but he steadfastly refused. After 8-years in prison, it was decided that the heretic, who still believed in the Christian God and proclaimed that his ideas only expanded the glory of God, must die to protect good, God-fearing Christians from the evil nature of his heresy. This protection came in 1600 and took the form of a stake to which Bruno was tied, and a fire that was lit to consume his still conscious body. Most of the time when a person was burned at the stake, there were actually strangled to death first and then burned in efigy. But Bruno's "crimes" were so serious that he wasn't spared the torture of the flames. And as his living body burned, good Christians gathered around chanting "heretic, heretic, heretic", while his works were tossed onto the fire to assure that others would not fall pray to his evil ideas.

Galileo, now heralded as a hero and the father of modern astronomy nearly befell the same fate. And he was familiar enough with the vicious nature of the church to try to assure that he would be spared such a fate. Before publishing his book he traveled to Rome to obtain personal permission from the pope. And while the pope did allow that he could publish a book presenting heliocentrism, he did require that Galileo provide equal time in his writings for geocentrism. Galileo agreed and proceded as requested. But when his book was finished, the church took exception to the angle through which geocentrism was presented. He only escaped execution by agreeing to publicly denounce his findings. In exchange for this he was granted the privilege of house arrest where he spent the last 9-years of his life, again to protect good God-fearing Christians from his heretical ideas.

It's very easy to make this seem like science versus christianity but that's looking at history quite selectively. It's more accurate to say it's the 'church' versus scientists and most of the time both the church and the scientists were christians.

It is what it is. The church adopts certain ideas based on the claims in the Bible and defends them violently against those who would present evidence to the contrary. Only when the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly convincing that there is no chance of maintaining that science is wrong does the whole of Christianity shift its footing to proclaiming that the Bible has never suggested other than what science has shown. And yet we don't have to look far to see that this is not true. Christianity has supported a flat Earth, geocentrism and creationism, all based on the scripture of the Bible. If you don't believe that, simply ask a creationist why they believe evolution is a farce.

Again you can't treat 'christianity' as a person. After these scientific advances many christians put up no fuss, objection or arguments. To say all christians were interpreting Genesis completely literally before Darwin would also be inaccurate. Looking at Augustine's views on it I doubt he'd be that suprised by the theory of evolution.

I have routinely used the term "Christianity" which is not the least inaccurate. The church takes specific stances and when large portions of the church disagree, we see new denominations form. The fact is, the same pattern of denying science, eventually accepting science and then reinterpreting the Bible to fit has been played out repeatedly.

Do you have any sources for their being an issue with the church and the flatness of the earth?

Admittedly the sources on this issue seem to be divided. But we do have indications that such a controversy existed such as the following quote.

"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church" -- Magellan​

According to wikipedia;

In fact, Eratosthenes had calculated the circumference of the earth around the 2nd century BC to within about 2% of the currently accepted value. Although a few early Christian writers had some theological objections[3], by the early Middle Ages all mainstream Christian groups and educated people espoused the idea of a round earth[4]. It should be noted that the uneducated masses continued to believe that the world was flat up till the time of Magellan.​

Again indicating resistance from the church. And why would the church care if not for the claims of scripture?

(Job 28:24) "For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens."

(Daniel 4:10-11) "The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."

(Isaiah 40:22) "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"​

All three of these examples are of huge scientific discoveries that completely changed the way we look at the world. Practically everyone would have had an issue with adjusting.

But not everyone stood on the laurels of an ancient book as the reason for contesting the scientific claims and not everyone responded (eventually), by changing how they read the book instead of admitting that it was wrong.

That the church, as a highly political, dogmatic institution, takes a bit longer is hardly suprising. Especially as our 'holy book' was written by flat earthers, geocentrists and creationists and people falsely believe it is the 'word of God'.

Which is a fine response for you but it conflicts with the opinions of the vast majority of Christians.

Don't worry, I've seen plenty for myself and I am completely aware that you are right. The expression is still unbiblical and highly theologically inaccurate.

And yet still representative of Christian belief as a whole.

How are you defining the standard christian view?

The view held by the vast majority of Christians. We can start a poll if this is an issue.

Whilst I may be in the minority, especially on here, I am not on my own. Just about every time somebody refers to the bible as the 'word of God' in origins theology they are pulled up for it.

That's good to hear. I've not seen much of that outside of my own objections when it comes to the General Apologetics section. People spout "the word of God" without the slightest indication of recognition that the statement can be demonstrated to be nothing more than an assumption.

I'd agree that some authors thought they were providing God's word but I'd probably limit that to the prophets and the law. The majority of the bible was written by people recording events. Whilst at points they were recording words that God spoke there is no reason to believe that they thought that their narration of the events was 'God's word'. The bible also contains songs written to and about God, and letters written to early churches. They can only accurately be described as the authors words, not God's.

Please not there is a difference between calling the bible 'God's word' and believing it is divinely inspired.

I recognize the distinction but would point out that the majority of Christians I've encountered seem completely removed from such a distinction. To most, the Bible is "the word of God" while other bibles claiming to be divinely inspired are misguided works or fakes.

 

[Markus6]

And this world view is what was taught as the "word of God" until well after science showed it to be completely incorrect. And while it's easy to simply dismiss the biblical authors from their errors by proclaiming that they didn't get their beliefs from God, how far do you take this?

Well! If you'd like to open your bible to page somethingorother...

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

First note that this is the verse used most often in defence of biblical infallibility. I think it's fair to say that to go from this verse to infallibility is a bit of a stretch. The verse says the bible is useful for matters of righteousness. God inspired the writers on issues of theology. He didn't explain all the secrets of the universe to every one of them.

It's pretty easy to wait until science shows something to be wrong in the Bible and then say, "Okay, well they didn't get that from God, but the rest came from God." But that's terribly dishonest.

I'd take issue with the phrase "came from God". The word is "inspired" not "dictated". Again you are making science sound like an anti-christian organisation. From our point of view science is the study of God's creation. We say God gave us two books to understand him, scripture and nature, and we interpret these with science and theology respectively. Science is clearly more authorative on the natural attributes of the earth (and theology on 'matters of righteousness' and the supernatural) so why can't we let science affect our interpretation of scripture? Nature IS infallible, made directly by God, whereas scripture was written by humans.

If they were inspired from God to write his message, did God not care how much entirely inaccurate information they mixed in? Why would God let that happen knowing that people who apply critical thought would instantly see that as an indication that none of the book has any connection with the supposed God it is claimed to be inspired by?

You're stuck thinking of the bible as 'God's word'. Some of those who believe that think God practically possessed the authors so that their personality, opinions and beliefs couldn't get onto the page. I don't. I don't think God had the final say as to what words got written, the author did. Hence the 'inaccurate information' on scientific matters.

Not only may you, but I'm glad you did. Probably the most notable individual would be an Italian Christian Monk by the name of Giordano Bruno. His act of heresy was to suggest that not only did the sun not orbit the Earth, but he went so far as to proclaim the strong likelihood that there were other planets around other stars and that some of those planets likely hosted life.

5 seconds of wikipediaing found me the actual list of 'crimes' Bruno was exectued for:

1. Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
4. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
5. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
6. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
7. Dealing in magics and divination.
8. Denying the Virginity of Mary.

No mention of his copernican beliefs there. Whilst I'd say the actions of the church were pretty bad here and I'm sure his heliocentrism had something to do with it the mental picture you are trying to paint of the catholic church running around executing anyone who dared think the earth moved is quite an exageration.

Galileo, now heralded as a hero and the father of modern astronomy nearly befell the same fate.

Granted Galileo's contribution to astronomy and beyond is huge. However, his input on the geo vs. helio issue wasn't much more than becoming the celebrity of the time. He was just espousing the Copernican view after Kepler had bettered it with elliptical orbits in Astronomi Nova in 1609.

And he was familiar enough with the vicious nature of the church to try to assure that he would be spared such a fate. Before publishing his book he traveled to Rome to obtain personal permission from the pope. And while the pope did allow that he could publish a book presenting heliocentrism, he did require that Galileo provide equal time in his writings for geocentrism. Galileo agreed and proceded as requested. But when his book was finished, the church took exception to the angle through which geocentrism was presented. He only escaped execution by agreeing to publicly denounce his findings. In exchange for this he was granted the privilege of house arrest where he spent the last 9-years of his life, again to protect good God-fearing Christians from his heretical ideas.

Can I recommend The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler? I'd like to see your source that suggests Gallileo was nearly executed.

Your claim was:

The fact that Christianity taught geocentrism for over 16-centuries and even executed and imprisoned those who attempted to demonstrate heliocentrism.

Firstly, (and I should have mentioned this before) science taught geocentrism for over 16-centuries as well. Secondly, what you've actually shown is one person who was executed for many different 'heresies' none listed as heliocentrism (though it probably contributed) and one who spent years under house arrest (very different from prison). Copernicus and Kepler, the main scientists behind heliocentrism, got off scotch free.

Admittedly the sources on this issue seem to be divided. But we do have indications that such a controversy existed such as the following quote.

"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church" -- Magellan​

According to wikipedia;

In fact, Eratosthenes had calculated the circumference of the earth around the 2nd century BC to within about 2% of the currently accepted value. Although a few early Christian writers had some theological objections[3], by the early Middle Ages all mainstream Christian groups and educated people espoused the idea of a round earth[4]. It should be noted that the uneducated masses continued to believe that the world was flat up till the time of Magellan.​

Not exactly a massive controversy. Certainly no executions or imprisonment.

Again indicating resistance from the church. And why would the church care if not for the claims of scripture?

(Job 28:24) "For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens."​

(Daniel 4:10-11) "The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth."​

(Isaiah 40:22) "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"​

Those verses don't exactly scream "flat earth" do they. If the society at the time hadn't believed the earth was flat I don't think anyone would have interpreted them that way in the first place.

But not everyone stood on the laurels of an ancient book as the reason for contesting the scientific claims and not everyone responded (eventually), by changing how they read the book instead of admitting that it was wrong.

I admit it's wrong on flat earth, geocentrism and creation (you'll see very few christians saying the bible preaches a round earth, heliocentrism and evolution). I don't see why then the only response is to chuck the book out instead of changing how I read it. If the main point of the bible was scientific claims then maybe but it isn't the point is theology and matter of righteousness.

Which is a fine response for you but it conflicts with the opinions of the vast majority of Christians.


And yet still representative of Christian belief as a whole.


The view held by the vast majority of Christians. We can start a poll if this is an issue.


That's good to hear. I've not seen much of that outside of my own objections when it comes to the General Apologetics section. People spout "the word of God" without the slightest indication of recognition that the statement can be demonstrated to be nothing more than an assumption.


I recognize the distinction but would point out that the majority of Christians I've encountered seem completely removed from such a distinction. To most, the Bible is "the word of God" while other bibles claiming to be divinely inspired are misguided works or fakes.

Well we seem to be getting somewhere here. I appreciate your open mindedness. Whilst I maybe a non-standard, dirty liberal christian can you see that my view of the bible is actually more biblical than those who think it is the infallible word of God?

 

[Markus6]

And to jump back a bit because I've just thought of something:

And if you're going to try to give details and a chronology even when one isn't required, why not strive for accuracy?

Notice that Genesis gives two chronologies and they conflict with each other. Why present two different chronologies, next to each other unless the important point isn't actually in the detail and the chronology?