Flat Earth, Geocentism, and Evolution

Micaiah · Nov 7, 2004

Are Christians who reject evolution because it does not accord with the literal interpretation Geneis 1,2 falling into the same error as those who believed the earth is flat, and the earth is the centre of the universe?

Conisider:

Was the Christian church through the ages responsible for promoting the idea of a flat earth, and the earth as the centre of the universe? What were the views of Christian church fathers through the ages? Who was primarily responsible for promoting views of a flat earth and Geocentrism?

What are the similarities and differences between alleged errors of interpretation in the past, and those now alleged against those who reject evolution because it does not accord with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

What is the literal interpretation of Genesis. How can Christians be sure it is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2? What is the internal evidence for and against accepting a literal interpreation of Genesis?

notto · Nov 8, 2004

The scientific method has been developed and men (and women) who use it are much more objective then early scientists who were often nothing more than 'educated men' many of which were clergy and studied theology. This objectiveness has separated scientific discovery from being tied to theologic interpretations (hense its objectiveness). There was no separation between church and science when issues like geocentrism and he flat earth were being addressed. They were addressed by men of faith looking into the creation of God. This looking led these men of faith to re-evaluate what they thought they knew about creation from studying the bible. The creation told a different story. They saught to confirm their intererpretation of scripture as it relates to the physical description of the earth but realized that they couldn't because their interpretion did not match the physical reality of the creation.

TwinCrier · Nov 8, 2004

Is something wrong with being clergy or studying theology? Neither of those two things effect the intelligence of a person. The flat-earth myth did not appear in schoolbooks before 1870, but nearly all textbooks included it after 1880. Columbus was a devout Catholic and no doubt got the idea that the Earth was round from the bible itself. The true MYTH is that the bible is not compatable with science.

Gold Dragon · Nov 8, 2004

Micaiah said:
Are Christians who reject evolution because it does not accord with the literal interpretation Geneis 1,2 falling into the same error as those who believed the earth is flat, and the earth is the centre of the universe?

Yes

Micaiah said:
Was the Christian church through the ages responsible for promoting the idea of a flat earth, and the earth as the centre of the universe?

No. The idea of the flat earth obviously predates the Christian church and was held by those outside of the Judea-Christian faith. This is simply anthrocentric thinking that was prevalent through all of mankind.

Wikipedia - Flat Earth
The flat Earth theory is the idea that Earth is flat, as opposed to the view of modern science that Earth is very nearly spherical (see Spherical Earth).

People from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages.

Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the renaissance of science several centuries later, some Christian writers questioned and even opposed Earth's sphericity, although it is not clearly known how influential their views were. Even before the Renaissance began, the flat Earth theory had almost died out; with the astrolabe, Arab astronomy reached Europe in the 11th century, and by the 1100s at the latest, the geocentric model had supplanted it in the minds of the learned people of Europe.

Micaiah said:
What were the views of Christian church fathers through the ages?

Most had little reason not to believe in flat-earthism and geocentrism if they ever thought about celestial objects at all. This was the common view by Christians and non-Christians.

Micaiah said:
Who was primarily responsible for promoting views of a flat earth and Geocentrism?

It didn't require any promotion since it was the intuitive view of the earth as well as the only view until Copernicus and Gallileo.

Micaiah said:
What are the similarities and differences between alleged errors of interpretation in the past, and those now alleged against those who reject evolution because it does not accord with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

The similarities are that of perspective. Literalists continue to ignore the fact that the Bible was written by humans for humans in a human perspective and not a scientific perspective. Yes I believe that God inspired those humans but the perspective or context it was written in cannot be ignored in good hermeneutical practices.

Micaiah said:
What is the literal interpretation of Genesis.

There are many literal interpretations of Genesis. Those that ignore the evidence of God's general revelation of creation are probably incorrect.

Micaiah said:
How can Christians be sure it is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2?

We can't. Our interpretation of scripture isn't something that we can ever guarantee as being correct. But we can try to make the most honest and hermeneutically sound interpretation possible given the literary, historical, cultural and creation evidence available to us at any given time. We'll find out how close we were when we get to heaven.

notto · Nov 8, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Is something wrong with being clergy or studying theology? Neither of those two things effect the intelligence of a person.

Absolutely not, just ask Darwin! The problem lies with holding a view that is contrary to the science you study and the evidence you find and simply claiming that the evidence you find MUST be incorrect because of your theological views. This is the problem with creation ministries such as ICR and AIG. They admit that they approach evidence in a subjective and unscientific way. Early theologians/scientists who studied the earth and biology didn't do this and their conclusions were that the earth was old and that special creation didn't happen.

gluadys · Nov 8, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Is something wrong with being clergy or studying theology? Neither of those two things effect the intelligence of a person. The flat-earth myth did not appear in schoolbooks before 1870, but nearly all textbooks included it after 1880. Columbus was a devout Catholic and no doubt got the idea that the Earth was round from the bible itself. The true MYTH is that the bible is not compatable with science.

Not at all. Though it would be good if we could mend some of the distance that has grown between science and theology. Until science became professionalized in the universities in the 19th century, it was not uncommon for a person to be educated in both theology and natural philosophy (as science was called then). Darwin was.

Today few scientists have any background in theology and even fewer theologians have a background in science. This is a great shame for there is much both could learn from each other.

I don't think anyone could learn from the bible that the earth is a sphere. At best the bible describes it as a circle. Columbus knew the earth was a sphere because that had been well-known in educated circles for centuries before he was born. In fact, about a century before he crossed the Atlantic, the great Italian poet, Dante Alighieri wrote his Divine Comedy in which he is guided through hell, purgatory and heaven. And the whole description of the cosmos matches that of Ptolemy's scientific description of a geocentric universe with a spherical earth. There is plenty of both scientific and literary and popular writing all through the middle ages which speaks of the heavenly spheres, which are also part of th Ptolemaic system.

Micaiah · Nov 9, 2004

I'm looking at the question of geocentrism first. A bit of background information about the progression of the various models of stellar and planetary orbits taken from here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp#Ptolemaic

Over two millennia ago, Aristotle (384322 BC) taught that the earth was the centre of a perfect universe in which the movements of the stars were circular and never ending.

Ptolemy (AD 2nd century) expanded these ideas into what became known as the Ptolemaic system.

According to Ptolemy, the sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around a fixed earth in a series of hollow, inter-nesting, crystalline spheres. This is called a geocentric or earth-centred system, and is known as the Ptolemaic system.

There were some problems which Ptolemys geocentric system did not fully explain, notably the to-and-fro motion of the planets across the sky, as seen from the earth. He therefore postulated a number of mechanisms that were ingenious and initially plausible, but ultimately impossibly complicated and scientifically wrong. For example, each planet was said to move in its own small curve called an epicycle, while all the epicycles moved around the earth in larger circles called deferents.

Then in the 16th century, Copernicus (14731543) postulated as a better explanation that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.1,2

In the 17th century, Galileo (15641642), with his telescope, was able to carry out repeated and repeatable observations which refuted Aristotle and Ptolemy, and supported Copernicus. For example, he observed that the sun had spots which moved across its surface, showing that the sun was not perfect and it itself rotated; he observed the phases of Venus, showing that Venus must orbit the sun; and he discovered four moons that revolve around Jupiter, not the Earth, showing that the Earth was not the centre of everything. In 1618, he observed three comets pass effortlessly through Ptolemys crystalline spheres (in which the planets and stars supposedly moved around the Earth), showing that these spheres must be imaginary.

The heliocentric (from Greek helios = sun) or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change. They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo s writings. Many Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities that the geocentric (earth-centred) system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.

Micaiah · Nov 9, 2004

Most had little reason not to believe in flat-earthism and geocentrism if they ever thought about celestial objects at all. This was the common view by Christians and non-Christians.

That is an interesting point, and it sounds reasonable. Peoples views may have been largely shaped by their own intuition, rather than an adherence to interpretations of particular verses of Scripture.

Vance · Nov 9, 2004

Micaiah said:
That is an interesting point, and it sounds reasonable. Peoples views may have been largely shaped by their own intuition, rather than an adherence to interpretations of particular verses of Scripture.

Yes, as were the authors who God inspired to write the Scripture. Since those authors believed in a fixed earth and moving sun, and so did all those who would read it for a VERY long time, God let those authors write the Scriptures which touch on the matter describe it in terms which would be understandable to both them and the readers, and would STILL be understandable to later Christians when they discovered the truth, except for those who then clung on to the over-literal reading of those Scriptures.

As a result, the Scriptures were written in a way that reflected their current understanding of the world. The Church read these Scriptures literally because they matched their understanding of the natural world. And the scientists also viewed the world this way. All fine and good so far.

The problem came in when the Church at first refused to make the necessary transition from literal reading to non-literal reading when the evidence came in, from science, that their natural understanding of the world was wrong. It took them a very long time to make this literal to non-literal transition, and it caused confusion and doubt in the meantime. Not because of the science, but because the Church refused to adjust their reading and condemn the science.

Micaiah · Nov 9, 2004

Here is a quote by Vance from another thread. I think it shows the TE's interpretation of history and many of their popular accusations levelled at YEC's.

Oh, the answer is very simple, and the truth I pointed out is a basic answer to the question.

For a more detailed answer as to why he would do it this way, the parallel with geocentrism works here as well. Why would he allow the Scripture to be written in such a way as to convince every Christian for 1500 years that it was saying that the sun did, literally, revolve around the earth? This is, in fact how they read it, and it was a MAJOR shock to the collective Church when scientists discovered this was not the case. It took them a couple of hundred years to accept it.

Now, did God know that every Christian would read those Scriptures in that incorrect way? Of course He did. Yet, He let it be written that way, anyway. Was this deceptive? Of course not. Did Christianity fall apart because people had to realize their interpretation was wrong and re-read it in light of the scientific realities? Of course not. I think God let it be written in a way that would make sense to those who were reading it first, and for a long time, but then knew that when we discovered the actual way the solar system worked, we would just say "ah, I see, then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

The same is true now regarding Genesis 1 and 2. God let it be written in a way that would be understandable to those reading it then, and for a long time, and which conveyed His greater truths in a powerful way. He knew that we would eventually we would discover the way it really worked, and we would say "ah, I see, then then this Scripture need not be read THIS way, it should be read THAT way".

True, when we first discovered the truth about heliocentrism, there were some who held firm to their geocentrist interpretation for a very long time, and some hang on doggedly to this day. At first, they did cause some problems by not following God's plan of "Ah, I see", causing doubt and conflict within the Church and persecution of those presenting the natural evidence. But eventually the truth won out and the stubborn few retreated to a fringe of Christianity, where you can still find them.

The same parallel is happening now with the YEC phenomenon. While most of Christianity has accepted evolution and an old earth and simple said "ah, I see", as before, there are still some who are doggedly hanging on to their interpretation. Yes, they are also causing doubt and conflict, but eventually the truth will win out and these groups will retreat to the fringe to join the geocentrists and God's work will go forward in full force.

Vance,

Can you provide references to demonstrate what you are asserting here:

Why would he allow the Scripture to be written in such a way as to convince every Christian for 1500 years that it was saying that the sun did, literally, revolve around the earth? This is, in fact how they read it, and it was a MAJOR shock to the collective Church when scientists discovered this was not the case. It took them a couple of hundred years to accept it.

Micaiah · Nov 9, 2004

I'd like to see a list of the passages from Scripture that were apparently used by Christians that to prove that the earth was flat, or is the centre of the universe (geocentrism).

Vance · Nov 9, 2004

Micaiah, here is what you can do for this information. Go to the thread entitled "Here is what the Geocentrists say . . ." and it links to a couple of sites that lists the relevant Scripture. Really, you should read through those sites, they are VERY important for understanding the respective feelings between YEC's and TE's. The modern geocentrists feel about YEC'ism very much as YEC's feel about TE'ism, and YEC's feel about geocentrism the same way TE's feel about YEC'ism.

Micaiah · Nov 10, 2004

Not much of an effort shown by the TE's here. Not even a link.

It is normal on this board to at least give a simary of the points you are trying to make if you post those links. If nothing else it demonstrates that you have some understanding of the content of your reference. At times I question whether that is the case.

Vance · Nov 10, 2004

awfully lazy of you Micaiah! :0)

Here ya go:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1102004-what-geocentrists-say-.html

TwinCrier · Nov 10, 2004

Vance, when someone asks a simple question, just answer it. Why should we have to search the internet to prove every claim you make? I never did find how many bones that skelaton was actually derived from.

Vance · Nov 10, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Vance, when someone asks a simple question, just answer it. Why should we have to search the internet to prove every claim you make? I never did find how many bones that skelaton was actually derived from.

I don't ask people to search the internet, but I will often ask people to check out another thread in this very forum. That is not too much to ask, rather than having to retype the same stuff for the nth time. Following a link is pretty simple.

As for your bones, I think the article I linked you to answered that, we have the skull-cap, which is enough in most cases to identify a species, or at least identify it within a specific group of possibilities. Did you read it? What do you think about what it said? Especially here:

"As mentioned above Lubenow, publishing in 1992, was one of the first major creationists to conclude that the Java Man skullcap did not belong to an ape. Bill Mehlert came to similar conclusion in a paper published in a creationist journal in 1994:

The finding of ER 3733 and WT 15000 therefore appears to strongly reinforce the validity of Java and Peking Man. The clear similarities shared by all four (where skeletal and cranial material available), render untenable any claims that the two Asian specimens are nothing more than exceptionally large apes. (Mehlert 1994)

Following this many of the better-informed creationists decided that the skullcap which had hitherto belonged to an ape was in fact human, such that Carl Wieland, the CEO of Answers in Genesis was able to write in 1998 (in a review of Richard Milton's book Shattering the myths of Darwinism) that

[Milton's] statement that the Java Man remains are now thought to be simply those of an extinct, giant gibbon-like creature is simply false. He appears to have been misled by the myth (commenced by evolutionists, and perpetuated in both creationist and evolutionist works since) that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, recanted and called his discovery a 'giant gibbon'. Knowledgable creationists do not make this sort of claim anymore. (Wieland 1998)"

TwinCrier · Nov 10, 2004

I thought for sure they had a few teeth and a femur as well. Certainly to develop an entire skeleton from a skullcap call for much speculation. You would think the evidence for these missing links would be abundant, yet an actual skeleton doesn't really exist.

Vance · Nov 10, 2004

TwinCrier said:
I thought for sure they had a few teeth and a femur as well. Certainly to develop an entire skeleton from a skullcap call for much speculation. You would think the evidence for these missing links would be abundant, yet an actual skeleton doesn't really exist.

Did you bother to read the article?

They do not develop an entire skeleton from a skull cap. They just recognize that this skull cap could not have been X, Y or Z, so it must be something else. That something else is something that does not exist now, and has characteristics which show it is "in between" earlier ape-like creatures and man in regards to the skull cap itself.

Why do you think we would necessarily have lots of skeletons of earlier hominids?

Do you even know what we DO have?

Here is a link to a page with lots of information, including all the Creationist arguments on hominid fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Micaiah · Nov 10, 2004

Here is a quote referred to by Vance.

What geocentrists say . . .

Since this has come up again, here is what I have presented earlier about geocentrism:

The Bible does not teach geocentrism (that the sun and stars revolve around the earth), but at one time Christians sure believed that geocentrism was required by a literal reading of Scripture. They treated the new evidence of God's Creation, presented to them by secular science, that the earth actually revolved around the sun (heliocentrism, or Copernicanism, as the quote below calls it) as contrary to Scripture and sound theology. In short, Christians at the time looked at the scientific presentation of heliocentrism EXACTLY as Creationists now look at evolution and an old earth.

And there are still geocentrists today who believe that Christians, and Creationists in particular, have abandoned the cause the true Biblical literalism and have given in to "Man's thinking" by accepting the modern teachings of science.

Here is what they have to say:

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

Here is a quote:

More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue. Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.

Sincere Creationists of whatever standing need not continue to have one foot in the anti-Bible Copernican camp where the Origin and nature of the cosmos is concerned, and the other foot in the pro-Bible Creationist camp where the Origin and nature of all life forms is concerned. Indeed, the time has arrived when Creationists must quit stonewalling the geocentrism issue and begin to look at the Biblical, historical, scientific, and logical evidence which upholds the geocentrism model. (Start HERE). All who will prayerfully and carefully look at that evidence will find that it exposes not only Copernicanism, but also the entire modern Big Bang-based cosmological paradigm! That paradigm-- whether realized or not--is the present day big gun in the spiritual warfare attempting to destroy Bible credibility and all that rests upon that credibility.

This link provides some of the Biblical basis, from a literal reading, that proves geocentrism

http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm

BTW, here are quotes from two NON-Roman Catholic Christians speaking out in favor of geocentrism at the time of the controversy:

· "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

· "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther

Sounds kind of like YECs today!

In fact, here IS a modern YEC:

· "God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

My point is that we need to see this current debate in the proper light. Christianity was NOT damaged when it finally came around to the teachings of science and accepted heliocentrism. It also has also not been damaged by accepting evolution and an old earth (since many, many Christians do accept these now).

In 200 years (if Jesus tarries), I am convinced that we will look back on this evolution/young earth creation debate exactly as we now look back on the geocentris/heliocentrism debate. Sure, there may still be hold-outs for YEC'ism, just as there are hold-outs for geocentrism. But Christianity will still move forward and prosper!

This is the first time I've seen these quotes by Luther and Calvin, and I have to say I am surprised.

It is clear they miscontrued the 'plain intent' of Scripture to support their own perspectives. I'd agree that the passages I've seen in the past used to justify a geocentric universe are intended as metaphorical. I'd like to see a list of them in this thread. It does highlight the caution that should be exercised in understanding the assertions made in Scripture about natural phenomena. It is interesting to note there are still Christians today who claim the earth is stationary.

Vance · Nov 10, 2004

Micaiah said:
Here is a quote referred to by Vance.

This is the first time I've seen these quotes by Luther and Calvin, and I have to say I am surprised.

It is clear they miscontrued the 'plain intent' of Scripture to support their own perspectives. I'd agree that the passages I've seen in the past used to justify a geocentric universe are intended as metaphorical. I'd like to see a list of them in this thread. It does highlight the caution that should be exercised in understanding the assertions made in Scripture about natural phenomena. It is interesting to note there are still Christians today who claim the earth is stationary.

Micaiah, I am impressed. Honestly.

And, yes, it is utterly amazing that people still believe in geocentrism and a "fixed earth". What is ironic about it is that those geocentrists see the rest of the Creationists who have accepted "Copernicism" or heliocentrism, as compromisers who have let the evidence presented by secular scientists "alter" their "plain" reading of Scripture. If you check out the whole site, it contains a manifesto, calling out all the rest of the Creationists, and urging them to come back to the true, literal reading of Scripture.

What will be harder for you to accept is that for us TE's and OEC's, the fact that the earth is billions of years old is JUST as clear to us as the fact that the earth spins and revolves around the sun is to you. It is equally amazing that there are still people believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Really and truly, we find both equally incredible.

Flat Earth, Geocentism, and Evolution

Well-Known Member

Legend

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency