Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, it is not that simple. In human communication we normally take for granted that people say what they mean and mean what they say unless we have reason to believe otherwise. Without that axiom, communication would be impossible
and thatis why your are wrong so often. none of you were there at the time of their living so you assume based upon your own limited research and fail to allow other options to be a part of what these peopel say.
until you can provide credible proof thatis whatthese people believed, you are just reading into their words, what you want them to believe.
find credible proof.
It is a given that people mean/believe what they say.
Nonsense. You have postulated that the church(es) did not hold the view that the sun orbited the earth. Please show us how you came to believe this.that idea is foolish for it opens one up to all sorts of misleading information and they pass that misinformation on to others. one has to be cautious and make sure the other person is using the words as one perceives.
ball is still in yor court
that idea is foolish for it opens one up to all sorts of misleading information and they pass that misinformation on to others. one has to be cautious and make sure the other person is using the words as one perceives.
ball is still in yor court
find some credible proof for your claims or i am done with this topic
take it that means you can suggest no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Church Fathers on their geocentrism
Not quite right Archie: many, including myself, have suggested that you show evidence of the church(es) believeing that the sun orbited the earth before the 1540's.NO! it just means you refuse to provide proof to back your claims and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
You mean like proof that Jerome was a liar? Yes until you provide proof for your claims you really shouldn't take part in the discussionarchaeologist said:NO! it just means you refuse to provide proof to back your claims and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Stanley Fish? Phone call for Stanley Fish!that idea is foolish for it opens one up to all sorts of misleading information and they pass that misinformation on to others. one has to be cautious and make sure the other person is using the words as one perceives.
ball is still in yor court
Heliocentrism was known in many cultures prior to the time of Jesus.
So, why do we arbitrarily yoke the BIble to Ptolemy?
The Bible itself has almost nothing to say about the subject except to say the sun rises in one place, sets in another and appears in the place where it rose in the first place. Is that cosmology? No. It is tendentious hermeneutics.
Everyone understands the geocentrism argument. But how is it supposed to be convincing in this form?
Ad Hom. The church had the authority to incarcerate Galileo because it was both a religious and secular authority. The is was a serious mistake, but I don't think American Christians should suggest a church's theology and exegesis be judged solely on the basis of their political mistakes...Well, I guess that's that.
Summary of ancient heliocentrist viewpoints:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
Galileo was incarcerated for his belief. Does that suggest that the Church authorities of his day were being Biblical? Obviously the Church had made an ENORMOUS botch of the Biblical theology of the day
Cardinal Bellarmine 12 April 1615. www.galilean-library.org/bellarmine1.html
My Very Reverend Father,
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing:
Firstly, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically [ex suppositione], and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Secondly, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining literally [ad litteram] that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter [ex parte objecti], it is still on the part of the ones who have spoken [ex parte dicentis].It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Thirdly, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc." were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.
It was only the translation into the vernacular that was forbidden. Any scholar worth his salt could and did read the scriptures in Latin.(assuming the Bible was even read, which largely was forbidden anyway).
They show what an unbiased literal interpretation of these passages say.Yet they are supposed to speak for the Bible when it suits the TE perspective?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?