Does the sun revolve around the earth?

[Montalban]

well please forgive my mistake then.

Please forgive my pestering about addressing the 'sunrise' aspect of my thread as I don't mean to hound you about this.

 

[jckstraw72]

its aaaaaaaaaall good

 

[Montalban]

We also have maps that represent the world as being flat, and oblong, even though we know that this is not true. But it allows us to work.

We can still talk about the 'four conrners of the earth' without knowing it to be literally so.

 

[Dorothea]

I'm hesitant to actually discuss this, I really don't like these kind of discussions, but I feel a serious error has been made.

I'd argue that those comments are just a matter of perspective, people still refer to the sun as "setting" even though we know its really the earth that's spinning. Its a description, its not some scientific statement. It would be a true statement that the earth is immovable, from the context of a normal regular person, the earth is mighty indeed from our small frame of reference. Additionally the comment in Joshua 10:13 this is a description of a miracle as seen from its observers. If the earth were in fact to stop spinning, the sun would appear to sit motionless in the sky, I doubt at the time the Israelites hardly cared about the science behind the miracle.

I don't think any of these are scientific statements about the nature of the world, and shouldn't be taken as such. And about the earth being fixed fastly in place, it really in fact is. If the earth were to deviate even slightly in its orbit around the sun things would not work quite right, in fact things would be relatively disastrous (I apologize for no source on this).

The creation account is told differently than the rest of the Bible, from a broad sense it details pretty specifically what God did and in what order, that is pretty significant and a much different perspective than a personal account taken from the eyes of man, since literally no one was around to see God making the earth. I question the reasoning behind God working the Genesis account into scripture if he didn't intend a purpose for it, or for us to take it seriously. If he simply meant to talk about the nature of man, he could have skipped all that creation mumbo jumbo and just talked about Adam and Eve. I honestly believe that together the accounts are quite sensible and the science behind those who support it is also decent and no more or less prone to holes than evolutionary theory or big bang cosmology, which have quite a number.

I am not trying to spark an argument, just add my perspective where I think it might be useful.

I agree. I never thought about the verses being scientific, but rather pertaining to a story...kinda poetic, if you will. I'm no expert, but it never occurred to me to think of it in a modern scientific way.

 

[heart of peace]

Universal common descent is an observation rather than a belief. I believe that God created the first life form, whatever it was, from which we are descended. Biological evolution, however, does not explain how life emerged nor where it came from.

This creature that you believe God created from which we are descended from is not Adam, is that correct? Was ths creature able to speak, think and rationalize in your belief?

I am also interested in understanding how you have reconciled this belief with your Orthodoxy. Clearly we are not told of any creatures that Adam descended from in the Bible, rather, we are told that Adam, whom we are descended from, was a created being and not a descended being.

 

[Montalban]

I agree. I never thought about the verses being scientific, but rather pertaining to a story...kinda poetic, if you will. I'm no expert, but it never occurred to me to think of it in a modern scientific way.

My understanding is that it's un-Orthodox to tie our faith to science

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Gfreat wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

Basil was a wise man! I know a great many Protestants want to prove the 'science' of the Bible when they battle against godless evolutionists

 

[Dorothea]

My understanding is that it's un-Orthodox to tie our faith to science

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church's teachers Vasilius the Gfreat wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

Basil was a wise man! I know a great many Protestants want to prove the 'science' of the Bible when they battle against godless evolutionists

Interesting indeed.

 

[Montalban]

This creature that you believe God created from which we are descended from is not Adam, is that correct? Was ths creature able to speak, think and rationalize in your belief?

I am also interested in understanding how you have reconciled this belief with your Orthodoxy. Clearly we are not told of any creatures that Adam descended from in the Bible, rather, we are told that Adam, whom we are descended from, was a created being and not a descended being.

That's why I have problems with materialistic evolution

 

[Montalban]

Interesting indeed.

Take for instance in the 1700s, or early 1800s there was a 'science' theory called Neptunism which was the belief that the land forms we see today were set down by flooding and giant oceans.

This might co-incide with the story of Noah's flood. People would then use the Bible to show that it predicted this science before the theory was known.

However, as Basil points out, scientists keep changing their mind. Neptunism was discarded in favour of Vulcanism... that is, that the earth gets its form through tectonics, volcanic erruptions, etc.

So all those who tied their faith to the science of the day would then have egg on their faces as the science changed.

 

[heart of peace]

That's why I have problems with materialistic evolution

Forgive my ignorance, what is meant by materialistic evolution? I really don't have a firm stance on this issue and considering that it does not have any impact on my salvation, it is the least of my concerns in my theological growth as an Orthodox Christian. I do lean towards the idea of evolution but I didn't realize that there were so many schools of thought on this topic. It's a bit overwhelming and somewhat troublesome.

 

[Montalban]

Forgive my ignorance, what is meant by materialistic evolution? I really don't have a firm stance on this issue and considering that it does not have any impact on my salvation, it is the least of my concerns in my theological growth as an Orthodox Christian. I do lean towards the idea of evolution but I didn't realize that there were so many schools of thought on this topic. It's a bit overwhelming and somewhat troublesome.

Materialistic evolution? Well materialism is the belief that all that there is is 'material' or of matter and/or it can be measured.

God is beyond measurement and not some thing in the sense that a rock, or radiating heat, or a hamburger is. Thus a materialist would not believe in God. Further those that believe in evolution (as it is taught) do not believe that there is evidence of God within the process of evoultion. Evolution, as it is taught in our schools and university consists only of material forces. One might believe in God, but his activity within the evolutionary process is not seen by scientists - and in fact they deem him unnecessary because all aspects of evolution can be accounted for through wholly naturalistic (as opposed to super-natual) mechanisms.

ID-theorists are supposed try to find God's 'fingerprints' in the process of evolution - that is, they don't believe evolution happened without God, and further, and more importantly believe one can find evidence of God's handiwork, in much the same way as one might detect* an 'intelligence' behind the death of someone. People such as Behe claim to believe in macro-evolution, but are not materialists.


*-through evidence such as fingerprints, etc.