Flat Earth, Geocentism, and Evolution

[GodSaves]

"Luther was a well educated man for his day. He had studied logic, psychology, spherical astronomy, metaphysics, mathematics and arithmetic, and was well acquainted with theories of music, perspective, natural and moral philosophy, politics, and economics, besides his biblical studies. He accepted the geocentric view of the universe; but this was natural since the doctrines of Aristotle and Ptolemy dominated the intellectual climate of his day. He rejected some of the views of some of his professors at Erfurt. He denied that God resided in the outermost sphere, the twelfth heaven, because he believed that God is omnipresent. For the same reason he did not take literally the Scripture that the ascended Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father."

--Table Talk

One of the most influential Greek astronomers and geographers of his time, Ptolemy propounded the geocentric theory in a form that prevailed for 1400 years.

--Claudius Ptolemy

Luther didn't push geocentrism, he trusted the science of Ptolemy to be correct and interpretated scriptures (concerning the sun rise, sun set and sun standing still) according to Ptolemy's theory of geocentrism. And now evolutionist are looking for Christian creationists to do the same. Luther, Calvin and others trusted science then and now it is used against Christians constantly as Vance has demonstrated hundreds of times. So shall we trust science once again with evolution so that it may be used against future generations of Christians to hinder the Gospel, no.

You want to blame someone for geocentrism then blame Claudius Ptolemy, not Martin Luther. All Martin Luther did was trust a scientific theory to be correct and now look what has happened because of him trusting sciences theories. Millions of people including Christians using it against Bible Believing (literal) Christians. And what are you asking us, to trust a scientific theory. How oddly familiar......

I for one am growing quite tired of you bringing up Luther, who actually is responsible for us having the BIBLE today, to accuse him because he trusted a scientific theory to be correct. It would be nice see you have a little more respect for a workman of God who put his life on the line to bring us the Bible so that we could read it for ourselves.

 

[Micaiah]

GodSaves,

Luther didn't push geocentrism, he trusted the science of Ptolemy to be correct and interpretated scriptures (concerning the sun rise, sun set and sun standing still) according to Ptolemy's theory of geocentrism. And now evolutionist are looking for Christian creationists to do the same. Luther, Calvin and others trusted science then and now it is used against Christians constantly as Vance has demonstrated hundreds of times. So shall we trust science once again with evolution so that it may be used against future generations of Christians to hinder the Gospel, no.

Nice post. I share your perspective.

Vance,

It does give some credence to your line of argument, at least in my mind, though GodSaves does provide an alternative and I consider more accurate picture of the real leassons to be learned. I'd like to give the similarities and differences between the geocentrism and creation some serious thought.

I should say that I've never questioned that the earth rotates about its axis. I would have thought that would be easy to prove in our satellite and rocket age. The Coriolis effect is one thing that is surely proof our earth's orbit. Fire a guided missile from the North pole and as it travels toward the equator its flight path to hit a target would need to be corrected for the earth's rotation.

This is a link that discusses some of the 'claims' of the geocentrists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp

Danny Faulkner for AIG sounds pretty scathing of the arguments being promoted by the geocentrist Gerardus Bouw and Marshall Hall.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You want to blame someone for geocentrism then blame Claudius Ptolemy, not Martin Luther.

i don't see anyone trying to fix blame on people for believing in a geocentric world. The big points are:
1- Christians used the Bible to prove geocentricism
2- They fought the new heliocentric views with passion and the cry of 'hold to the word of God'
3- but we no longer agree with the geo but accept the helio and furthermore see no justification in the Scriptures for the geo.
4- there exists geocentrics who use analogous arguments directed towards the YECists that they are compromisers with science for abandoning the clear plain literal teaching of the Scriptures regarding the fixity of the earth.

What this all points towards is a very good example of how science modifies theology. It is a big lesson to learn, both what to do and what not to do.

Now is the lesson directly transferable to the current discussion on origins?
just as fixity of the earth was first taught by the Greeks, so was fixity of the species. Just as Aristotle's misunderstandings of the world had to be removed from astronomy to see the universe through better filters, Aristotle's ideas about biology had to be eliminated to get a better idea of the actual way the biological world works.

there are lots of parallels between the way Christians have accepted an Aristotelian views of the universe to allow them to defend geocentricism as God's plan and how Christians have misappropriated Greek science to believe in the fixity of species (kinds) when there is no more evidence in Scripture for this than is there for a geocentric solar system. Both are Greek scientific filters imposing their perspective on Scriptural readings.

The other angle is that Scripture does teach a geocentric world, a static biological world, and that these are reflections of a world view being used by God to teach spiritual truths. Since we can not talk about the world without incorporating our views of how it works, these things are necessary parts of Scripture but are not the transcultural message relevant to us and being authoritatively taught.

 

[GodSaves]

i don't see anyone trying to fix blame on people for believing in a geocentric world. The big points are:
1- Christians used the Bible to prove geocentricism

Wrong. Christians used the Bible and read those verses after accepting Ptolemy theory of geocentrism. Exactly what theistic evolutionists do today.

2- They fought the new heliocentric views with passion and the cry of 'hold to the word of God'

So they were resistent to change. Will hold that against them to prove your point? WIll drag down the people who put THEIR LIFE on the line so YOU and I could read the Bible?

3- but we no longer agree with the geo but accept the helio and furthermore see no justification in the Scriptures for the geo.

Because again, just like Luther did, are reading the scripture based on the scientific helio model.

4- there exists geocentrics who use analogous arguments directed towards the YECists that they are compromisers with science for abandoning the clear plain literal teaching of the Scriptures regarding the fixity of the earth.

There are atheists who use the same arguements as theistic evolutionists. Shall we use atheist to compare with theistics evolutionists as you have used geocentrists to compare to young earthers? You aren't comparing faith you are comparing thought and interpretation. TE's hold the same interpretation of science as atheists.

What this all points towards is a very good example of how science modifies theology. It is a big lesson to learn, both what to do and what not to do.

Exactly and Luther and Calvin are constantly brought down so that you and others can make their points about evolution. This is sad. Do you really realize that Luther was in hiding because the Church wanted him dead? While in hiding he translated the Bible so you could have a copy. Are you not in the least bit grateful that this man put his life on the line for God and us? You don't give any gratitude by pulling his name down so that you can elevate evolution.

Now is the lesson directly transferable to the current discussion on origins?
just as fixity of the earth was first taught by the Greeks, so was fixity of the species. Just as Aristotle's misunderstandings of the world had to be removed from astronomy to see the universe through better filters, Aristotle's ideas about biology had to be eliminated to get a better idea of the actual way the biological world works.

Are you aware that it was science not religion - even if the scientists were religious - that put forth the geocetrism model. Are you aware that it is the church not science that is blamed for geocentrism.

Now you are asking for the church to accept science once again with a theory that cannot be proven. A theory that many scientists call a bad theory. The church accepted sciences theories before and now the church is always the one to blame for holding the theory when they only accepted it when presented by science.

Yes there is a lesson to be learned here. Don't trust science theories in reading and understanding the Bible when they don't coincide.

there are lots of parallels between the way Christians have accepted an Aristotelian views of the universe to allow them to defend geocentricism as God's plan and how Christians have misappropriated Greek science to believe in the fixity of species (kinds) when there is no more evidence in Scripture for this than is there for a geocentric solar system. Both are Greek scientific filters imposing their perspective on Scriptural readings.

The other angle is that Scripture does teach a geocentric world, a static biological world, and that these are reflections of a world view being used by God to teach spiritual truths. Since we can not talk about the world without incorporating our views of how it works, these things are necessary parts of Scripture but are not the transcultural message relevant to us and being authoritatively taught.

The Bible never taught geocentrism. Are you suggesting that it was God's Plan to teach geocentrism through the Bible? IF not then I suggest everyone who makes the claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism to edit your posts where you state that. I am not asking geocentrists, I am asking YOU. Do you claim it was God who tried to teach geocentrism in the Bible?

How many times must you all drag down the names of people of God who put their life on the line to bring us the Bible so that you can elevate evolution? These men did more than any of us are doing right now. Unless one of you is translating the Bible while hiding because many are seeking to kill you because of your faith.

 

[Vance]

Right, rmwilliamsll, it is not a matter of blaming whoever "came up with" geocentrism (or, as you point out, fixity of species), but the fact that the Church dogmatically insisted that the literal reading of Scripture supported the concept. Remember, the Scripture was written BEFORE geocentrism was presented as a scientific concept, but was still written from a geocentric perspective. This is because even before the scientists formulated a geocentric theory, the idea of the fixed earth and rotating heavens was what everyone already believed, including the writers of Scripture. All the Greeks did was formulate a scientific theory about it.

It is simply wrong to state that the Church read those Scriptures geocentrically because science had presented a geocentric model.

Again, both the scientific theory and the Scriptural representation of geocentrism were founded on the same thing: it is what things seem to be without greater scientific knowledge.

What the Church did was fail to reconsider their reading of Scripture when the evidence came in.

And, remember, this was not just based on the Scripture, but on theology as well. The whole approach of Genesis 1 is based on the earth and heavens, with the heavenly bodies being created FOR the earth. The earth was the central figure, and the home for God's ultimate creation: Man. Now, what happens to all of this when we begin to consider that the earth is NOT the object around which everything revolves? When it is just one of a series of planets revolving around the sun! Not to mention that that sun is just one of billions of other suns in a galaxy which is just one of billions of galaxies. It just doesn't seem to match up with the earth being created specially, and the rest of the universe existing only IN RELATION TO that earth. All this new science seems to the literalist to be a far cry from the Genesis sensibility, and seems to them to be watering down the Scriptural account of Creation.

So, you can have some sympathy with the Church when Galileo began presenting all this new information! We might react the same way. We can even have a modicum of sympathy for the modern geocentrist.

But they are still wrong.

And yes, AiG is just as tough on the geocentrists as they are on Hovind. Both create serious problems for the presentation of YEC'ism.

 

[Vance]

And, no, God did not teach geocentrism any more than He taught a young earth. God allowed the Scriptures to be written in a way that would allow people to go on believing both of these things, since it is not relevant to salvation, but then would also allow them to believe in heliocentrism and an old earth when those facts were discovered. The only problem comes in when the Church digs in its heels and refuses to do this when the evidence presents itself, because they equated how they were reading the Scripture with what God was teaching.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

WIll drag down the people who put THEIR LIFE on the line so YOU and I could read the Bible?

Exactly and Luther and Calvin are constantly brought down so that you and others can make their points about evolution. This is sad. Do you really realize that Luther was in hiding because the Church wanted him dead? While in hiding he translated the Bible so you could have a copy. Are you not in the least bit grateful that this man put his life on the line for God and us? You don't give any gratitude by pulling his name down so that you can elevate evolution.

I do not understand what appears to be primarily ad hominem remarks with a level of bitterness that my writings simply do not warrant. In particular i have spent a considerable amount of my time, basically 5 months of 12-16 hour days, trying to understand Calvin. I suspect that the author of these remarks is not as aware nor as well read in either Luther or Calvin as i am, and i take issue with the strident tone of this message. It is my desire to understand the issues, to become aware and knowledgable about the history and the theology, and i believe that such characterizations of my writing is unfounded and wrong headed.

i will continue to wrestle with the issues, i however will not engage in what appears to be ad hominem remarks, other than this one message that is critical of the tone and these particular statements quoted above.

....

 

[GodSaves]

So then you and others have not used Luther and his belief of geocentrism that came from Ptolemy to elevate the theory of evolution? Have you and others used Luther's belief to try and justify your belief? Luther's belief stemmed from Ptolemy and his theory of geocentrism. Luther read the scripture with this theory in mind.

Those who use this argument are using it at the expense of Martin Luther. It was not the church who founded the theory of geocentrism and many of you would like to ignore this FACT. It was Ptolemy and Aristotle who pushed this idea, not the church. The church believed them and their scientific theory. Once again science is demanding the Church to believe them and their scientific theory, evolution. IT is history repeating itself, and those who want the church to believe this will geocentrism against Martin Luther and other Christians in order to elevate evolution.

 

[Vance]

So then you and others have not used Luther and his belief of geocentrism that came from Ptolemy to elevate the theory of evolution? Have you and others used Luther's belief to try and justify your belief? Luther's belief stemmed from Ptolemy and his theory of geocentrism. Luther read the scripture with this theory in mind.

How do you know that? What evidence do you have that those who read the Scripture geocentrically did so solely because they adopted a scientific theory? This is just a cop-out. People believed in a fixed earth and that the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth (in short, in geocentricity) long before any Greek made a scientific model of how it happened. It is just how people viewed the universe. You keep ignoring this fact in your attempt to vindicate the Church and Luther in particular from their mistakes in this area.

And, really, there is nothing to vindicate! They believed how we all would have believed at the time. How many of us would have readily adopted the new scientific presentation?

I know you are newly attending a Lutheran church, and thus are probably even more defensive of Luther's memory as a result. But no one is attacking Luther. No one is using Luther to try to justify a belief. We are just pointing out that both the Roman Catholic Church AND the Protestant churches were reading the Scripture geocentrically and were opposed to this new scientific discovery.

Those who use this argument are using it at the expense of Martin Luther. It was not the church who founded the theory of geocentrism and many of you would like to ignore this FACT. It was Ptolemy and Aristotle who pushed this idea, not the church. The church believed them and their scientific theory. Once again science is demanding the Church to believe them and their scientific theory, evolution. IT is history repeating itself, and those who want the church to believe this will geocentrism against Martin Luther and other Christians in order to elevate evolution.

This is truly a mistatement of history. The Church did not read the Scripture geocentrically because it was the current scientific theory. They read it that way, becausethis was their natural belief and because it was written in a way that fit this belief. It was written by someone who believed the earth was fixed and everything else revolved, and so the story is told from that perspective. Everyone from that time period believe this, it is simple historical fact. The Greeks did not invent this idea and impose it on everyone, they just developed a model for HOW it worked.

The simple fact is that people believed in a geocentric universe before Ptolemy and, thus, would have without Ptolemy. This means that they read Scripture from a geocentric perspective before Ptolemy and would have done so without Ptolemy. It was just how people viewed the world, and it makes sense, since we can't feel the ground moving, and we do SEE the sun and stars moving. It is the natural and instinctive, but incorrect, view of the universe before we discovered otherwise.

It is our responsibility to understand the cultural background of the writers and early readers in order to read the text correctly today. It is our responsibility to realize that the text was written as it was NOT because God is teaching that the earth really IS fixed, or that the sun and stars really DO revolve around the earth, but that it is written from this perspective because that is what the writer, and the original readers, believed. It is our responsibility, now that we know better, to read it differently.

 

[Micaiah]

To summarise my understanding of the arguments to date:

YEC's believe inspiration ensures all facts in Scripture, whether they be spiritual, scientific, or historical are correct. Therefore, when Scripture makes plain assertions about nature and Creation we can depend on what is stated. They recognise metaphorical language used by the ancients to describe the above, and do not suggest we should use this as a basis for scientific truth.

YEC's say once you admit error in any shape or form into the facts asserted by the Scriptures, you undermine the integrity of the Scriptures. If you cannot trust the Bible on earthly matters, how can you trust it on heavenly matters. We argue that the apparent contradictions in Scripture are due to our limited understanding. The historical records of Scripture have been proven time and again by archaeology to be correct. Genesis records a list of statements or pronouncements made by God about creation. The usual formula for each day of creation is:
God said...And God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the nth day. To question the statements an author attributes to God in a passage such as Genesis is to throw into question most of the statements attributed to God in Scripture. To claim that we can trust the statements made about spiritual matters, but discount statements made about scientific matters seems contrived.

The TE's posting here do not believe that inspiration naturally extends to statements about scientific and historical fact. They believe the writers of Scripture largely reflected the prevailing sentiments of their day on historical and scientific matters. I suspect they may also consider that there are some spiritual aspects of their message that we can discard for similar reasons, but I'll let the TE's confirm this. God ensured the important doctrines are adequately expressed in Scripture despite the mistakes.

TE's argue that early Genesis was pieced togther from contemporary writings and popular beliefs of the day. They believe that these writings reflect the mythical nature of those stories and to interpret them literally is to fall into the same error as some of our noted theologians.

To assess whether we can extend the same line of reasoning about geocentrism to Creation, we need to carefully consider the various Scriptural references in question. In what way are they similar, in what way are they different? What was their intended purpose?

 

[Vance]

The TE's posting here do not believe that inspiration naturally extends to statements about scientific and historical fact. They believe the writers of Scripture largely reflected the prevailing sentiments of their day on historical and scientific matters. I suspect they may also consider that there are some spiritual aspects of their message that we can discard for similar reasons, but I'll let the TE's confirm this. God ensured the important doctrines are adequately expressed in Scripture despite the mistakes.

Very close. First, I would not use the word "mistake". If God doesn't intend a Scripture to be accurate history or science, then it is not a mistake when it does not. See Didaskomenos' excellent explanation of this point. The Bible does not "make mistakes", so the extent to which there is something that is not historically accurate, or not scientifically accurate, it is because the text was not intended to convey accurate history in every detail or accurate science in every detail. And, no, I can not think of any theological messages from Scripture which can be discarded due to an understanding of their cultural perspective (unless you want to consider the Law of Moses to the extent it has been replaced with the New Covenant). I do think, however, that many of the lifestyle aspects of Biblical times must always be taken in their context. Multiple wives, slavery, concubines, etc, even though tacitly (or even explicitly) condoned in Scripture, need to be read in the cultural context.

TE's argue that early Genesis was pieced togther from contemporary writings and popular beliefs of the day. They believe that these writings reflect the mythical nature of those stories and to interpret them literally is to fall into the same error as some of our noted theologians.

I think this does not take God's oversight and inspirational role in the formation of the text. I don't think He just allowed the text to be put together willy nilly, but watched over its formation, while allowing some of the writers to convey the messages in their own words, just as He let Paul convey the epistles in his own words, while assuring that the essential message meant to be conveyed is included.

 

[GodSaves]

How do you know that? What evidence do you have that those who read the Scripture geocentrically did so solely because they adopted a scientific theory? This is just a cop-out. People believed in a fixed earth and that the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth (in short, in geocentricity) long before any Greek made a scientific model of how it happened. It is just how people viewed the universe. You keep ignoring this fact in your attempt to vindicate the Church and Luther in particular from their mistakes in this area.

Where is your proof that Luther did not read the scriptures with the theory of geocetrism in mind? You are the one trying to create a cop-out by using the Church as an example of what not to do. You have not even given any credit or blame to those who actually pushed the theory of geocentrism. You soley blame the church for the belief. Ptolemy and Arsitotle aren't even mentioned as the cause of the theory rather you turn the blame on the church for trusting the scientific theory. Then you expect the church to do it all over again, trust another scientific theory - evolution.

You are trying to bring guilt on the church, Luther and Calvin for trusting Ptolemy and his propounded theory.

And, really, there is nothing to vindicate! They believed how we all would have believed at the time. How many of us would have readily adopted the new scientific presentation?

You are the one who continually brings blame on the church and Luther for believing geocentrism. Geocentrism is a theory of Ptolemy not the church. You have never attributed the theory to Ptolemy you only focus on the church who has been burned by trusting science and its theories.

I know you are newly attending a Lutheran church, and thus are probably even more defensive of Luther's memory as a result. But no one is attacking Luther. No one is using Luther to try to justify a belief. We are just pointing out that both the Roman Catholic Church AND the Protestant churches were reading the Scripture geocentrically and were opposed to this new scientific discovery.

Wrong. You have brought up the remarks made by Luther and Calvin to used against creationists. Otherswise what was your intention for bringing them up??? You used them to try and justify the belief in evolution. It is not the question that the churches were opposed to scientific theories, they did accept the theory of geocentrism that you and others continually use against them.

I would venture to say that they realized that science is not the end all of anything. Science is constantly changing its theories and beliefs. Geocentrism is a great example how science will get behind one theory and then find out they are wrong. Now science is behind evolution and I suspect that science will soon find out they are wrong.

You are the one who wants the church to follow this fleeting belief system that is ever changing. God said He never changes. But you want to incorporate a system of belief into Christianity that is ever changing. That directly affects sin, death, and the fall of man. So when evolution gets muddier or changes, a new doctrine of sin, death and fall of man will need to be made.

I am not a newly attending at a Lutheran church by the way. You don't know me as well as you would like to think.

This is truly a mistatement of history. The Church did not read the Scripture geocentrically because it was the current scientific theory. They read it that way, becausethis was their natural belief and because it was written in a way that fit this belief. It was written by someone who believed the earth was fixed and everything else revolved, and so the story is told from that perspective. Everyone from that time period believe this, it is simple historical fact. The Greeks did not invent this idea and impose it on everyone, they just developed a model for HOW it worked.

So then you have evidence that shows Martin Luther only believed geocentrism because of the Bible and not because of Ptolemy's theory? Books on Martin Luther say differently, namely Table Talk.

The simple fact is that people believed in a geocentric universe before Ptolemy and, thus, would have without Ptolemy. This means that they read Scripture from a geocentric perspective before Ptolemy and would have done so without Ptolemy. It was just how people viewed the world, and it makes sense, since we can't feel the ground moving, and we do SEE the sun and stars moving. It is the natural and instinctive, but incorrect, view of the universe before we discovered otherwise.

Then you agree it is perspective and not the teaching of the Bible.

It is our responsibility to understand the cultural background of the writers and early readers in order to read the text correctly today. It is our responsibility to realize that the text was written as it was NOT because God is teaching that the earth really IS fixed, or that the sun and stars really DO revolve around the earth, but that it is written from this perspective because that is what the writer, and the original readers, believed. It is our responsibility, now that we know better, to read it differently.

Actually Vance, as Christians it is our responsibility to trust and believe God, and trust those whom God has sent in His behalf. The authors of the Bible have clearly been used by God to reveal Himself and what He has done. It is also our responsibility to uphold the body of Christ (the Church) and not tear it down to suit our own needs. You seem to feel it is ok to talk badly about the church and Luther if it helps promote your cause, evolution. You are not fighting to preach God's Word, because if you were you wouldn't be in this forum. You are fighting to preach evolution.

You know there is a self proclaimed prophet alive right now. He states that evolution was God's method. He also states there were people before Adam and Eve. He is currently writting a new Bible, starting on the first book of it called before Genesis. You know how he believes he is correct? He said he saw a white light that told him so.

 

[Didaskomenos]

They believe the writers of Scripture largely reflected the prevailing sentiments of their day on historical and scientific matters. I suspect they may also consider that there are some spiritual aspects of their message that we can discard for similar reasons, but I'll let the TE's confirm this. God ensured the important doctrines are adequately expressed in Scripture despite the mistakes.

Depends on the TE. I think this is sort of what lucaspa is talking about in another thread when he says that the God who tries to give Adam a helpmeet, and then realizes that only a woman will do is a God who is not recognized as infinitely wise - but is the Creator in the Creation account, nonetheless.

 

[mhess13]

You know there is a self proclaimed prophet alive right now. He states that evolution was God's method. He also states there were people before Adam and Eve. He is currently writting a new Bible, starting on the first book of it called before Genesis. You know how he believes he is correct? He said he saw a white light that told him so

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GodSaves]

[/font]
Depends on the TE. I think this is sort of what lucaspa is talking about in another thread when he says that the God who tries to give Adam a helpmeet, and then realizes that only a woman will do is a God who is not recognized as infinitely wise - but is the Creator in the Creation account, nonetheless.

OR, God was allowing Adam to excersie his free will in choosing a mate, all the while knowing He would created a woman for him. Choice, its all about choice.

 

[Vance]

Where is your proof that Luther did not read the scriptures with the theory of geocetrism in mind? You are the one trying to create a cop-out by using the Church as an example of what not to do. You have not even given any credit or blame to those who actually pushed the theory of geocentrism. You soley blame the church for the belief. Ptolemy and Arsitotle aren't even mentioned as the cause of the theory rather you turn the blame on the church for trusting the scientific theory. Then you expect the church to do it all over again, trust another scientific theory - evolution.

No, I don't blame the Church for the belief. Where do you get this stuff? It was not just the Church who believed in geocentrism, it was EVERYONE who believed in geocentrism. The problem was not with the belief in geocentrism. The problem was to insist the Bible taught geocentrism. It wasn't any scientist who presented THAT idea.

You keep ignoring the reality of the situation. Again, the Church did not believe the Scripture spoke of geocentrism because some scientists told them to. The scientific theories simply reinforced the natural view of the world they already had, and would have continued to have with or without any science.

You are trying to bring guilt on the church, Luther and Calvin for trusting Ptolemy and his propounded theory.

Um, no. Wrong on both accounts. I am not trying to bring guilt on the Church, or Luther or Calvin. They made a mistake, we should learn from it. That's all. Second, Calvin, Luther and the Church did not believe the Scripture taught geocentrism because they "trusted" Ptolemy. Again, that ignores the historical realities.

Wrong. You have brought up the remarks made by Luther and Calvin to used against creationists. Otherswise what was your intention for bringing them up??? You used them to try and justify the belief in evolution. It is not the question that the churches were opposed to scientific theories, they did accept the theory of geocentrism that you and others continually use against them.

Why do I bring up Calvin and Luther? Because the first time I raised this issue months ago, someone said it was just the Catholic Church "and we all know how wrong they are", going on and on about it being a RCC issue. Notice how in my presentation, I said that here were some NON-Roman Catholic Christian leaders who believed the same thing.

And again, you miss the point. The problem was NOT that they accepted geocentrism. Lots and lots of very smart people did for thousands of years. The original writers of the Bible believed that way. Paul believed that way, EVERYONE believed that earth was fixed and the sun and stars revolved around it until Copernicus and then Galileo proved otherwise.

I would venture to say that they realized that science is not the end all of anything. Science is constantly changing its theories and beliefs. Geocentrism is a great example how science will get behind one theory and then find out they are wrong. Now science is behind evolution and I suspect that science will soon find out they are wrong.

No, what it shows is that science is willing to change its theories completely when the evidence shows that their current theory is wrong. Something that many Creationists are not willing to do.

You are the one who wants the church to follow this fleeting belief system that is ever changing. God said He never changes. But you want to incorporate a system of belief into Christianity that is ever changing. That directly affects sin, death, and the fall of man. So when evolution gets muddier or changes, a new doctrine of sin, death and fall of man will need to be made.

Um, no, I don't want the Church to "follow" any scientific theory. That is not the Church's job. I just want it to stop teaching that a given scientific theory is directly contrary to Scripture in a dogmatic way, saying that if one is true, the other is false. That is all I want. How many times do I have to say that?

I am not a newly attending at a Lutheran church by the way. You don't know me as well as you would like to think.

Ah, when you said

" I was brought up to believe it was symbolic only. I have been attending a Lutheran Church which believes it is real presence."

I took it to mean that you were only recently attending, since you said "I have been attending" rather than "I attend" or "I belong to" etc.

My mistake.

So then you have evidence that shows Martin Luther only believed geocentrism because of the Bible and not because of Ptolemy's theory? Books on Martin Luther say differently, namely Table Talk.

I know for a fact that he would have believed geocentrism regardless of what the scientific theory was, since EVERYONE believed it with or without scientific theories up to the time of Galileo (unless you think he would have been the one person to divine the true nature of the solar system). And again, the point is not whether he believed in geocentrism, but how he interpreted Scripture, and his willingness to condemn the correct science because it conflicted with that interpretation.

Then you agree it is perspective and not the teaching of the Bible.

Of course it is not a teaching of the Bible. How many times do I have to say that. Look at the first paragraph of the post that Micaiah quoted. The writer of the Scriptures believed in a geocentric universe, just as did everyone else at that time and before and since, until Galileo. So, he wrote it from that perspective. Thus, it reads as if it is the earth is fixed, and all revolves around it. The Scripture thus is written from this perspective, it does not teach that geocentrism is true.

AND THAT is what the Church got wrong, and what modern geocentrists get wrong today. They insisted that just because it is written from that perspective, that perspective must be TRUE. And, thus, any theory to the contrary must be false.

Actually Vance, as Christians it is our responsibility to trust and believe God, and trust those whom God has sent in His behalf. The authors of the Bible have clearly been used by God to reveal Himself and what He has done. It is also our responsibility to uphold the body of Christ (the Church) and not tear it down to suit our own needs. You seem to feel it is ok to talk badly about the church and Luther if it helps promote your cause, evolution. You are not fighting to preach God's Word, because if you were you wouldn't be in this forum. You are fighting to preach evolution.

No, you seem to have ignored every post I have made in these forums. Would you say that the YEC ministries are failing to uphold the body of Christ when they attack the beliefs of their fellow Christians? Do you think you fail to uphold the body of Christ when you challenge the beliefs of your fellow Christians? Are you tearing it down? No? Then why would you assign different motives to me when I challenge the YEC teaching? If you saw a dangerous doctrine being taught, would you remain silent because to speak out would be a failure to "uphold the body of Christ"?

I fight to remove the stumbling block that is the YEC "either/or" teaching. That is why I am here. I know that doing so will result in more souls being won for the Kingdom. Isn't that what we all should be worried about?

You know there is a self proclaimed prophet alive right now. He states that evolution was God's method. He also states there were people before Adam and Eve. He is currently writting a new Bible, starting on the first book of it called before Genesis. You know how he believes he is correct? He said he saw a white light that told him so.

So, if a man calling himself a prophet believed in YEC'ism and said that he received this message of YEC'ism from a white light and was going to rewrite Scripture to make it clear that only YEC'ism was correct, would you say that this argued against YEC'ism in any way?

 

[gluadys]

Wrong. Christians used the Bible and read those verses after accepting Ptolemy theory of geocentrism. Exactly what theistic evolutionists do today.

But Ptolemy did not invent the concept of geocentrism. That had always been the "default" concept of pre-scientific times. Where the Ptolemaic conception departs from the earlier view is not in the position of the earth, but in its shape. Ptolemy's system required the earth and heavens to be spherical while earlier it had been assumed that the earth was flat and the heavens spread out like a dome or tent over it. Both Ptolemy's system, which was accepted by the church, and the earlier flat-earth system accepted by the bibilical writers were geocentric.

The big question is, why did the church move easily from a flat-earth to a spherical earth view, but resist moving from a geo-centric to a helio-centric view?

I would suggest it is because the church fathers of the 2nd century were not bound to a literal interpretation of scripture as the religious leaders of the 16th century were.

 

[gluadys]

To summarise my understanding of the arguments to date:

The TE's posting here do not believe that inspiration naturally extends to statements about scientific and historical fact. They believe the writers of Scripture largely reflected the prevailing sentiments of their day on historical and scientific matters. I suspect they may also consider that there are some spiritual aspects of their message that we can discard for similar reasons, but I'll let the TE's confirm this. God ensured the important doctrines are adequately expressed in Scripture despite the mistakes.

Quite right. A spiritual view that conceives of God commanding genocide down to the infant male but a day old is not one I consider consistent with the God revealed by the Word made flesh.

I can understand the theology behind it, and why it is written in scripture, but I think the gospels give us reason to discard this message as not truly reflective of the will of God.

 

[Micaiah]

And there in rests the weakness of the TE, and it cousin liberal theology. Whenever you hit a passage that contradicts your own sensibilities, you have several ways of explaining away its intent. One of the things we could learn from Luther and Calvin is that our own intuition can be wrong. It is influenced by our beliefs, and though it can guide us to God's truth it can also deceive us.

 

[GodSaves]

No, I don't blame the Church for the belief. Where do you get this stuff? It was not just the Church who believed in geocentrism, it was EVERYONE who believed in geocentrism. The problem was not with the belief in geocentrism. The problem was to insist the Bible taught geocentrism. It wasn't any scientist who presented THAT idea.

You have said, see the church did this and was wrong in the literally reading so therefore you creationists are also wrong in your literal reading.

And again, you miss the point. The problem was NOT that they accepted geocentrism. Lots and lots of very smart people did for thousands of years. The original writers of the Bible believed that way. Paul believed that way, EVERYONE believed that earth was fixed and the sun and stars revolved around it until Copernicus and then Galileo proved otherwise.

So you have proof as well that Paul believe in geocentrism? Or is your proof everyone else did so Paul did to. That is not impressive logic.

No, what it shows is that science is willing to change its theories completely when the evidence shows that their current theory is wrong. Something that many Creationists are not willing to do.

Are you looking for Biblical teachings to change with science everytime science finds out it is wrong and changes its beliefs?

Um, no, I don't want the Church to "follow" any scientific theory. That is not the Church's job. I just want it to stop teaching that a given scientific theory is directly contrary to Scripture in a dogmatic way, saying that if one is true, the other is false. That is all I want. How many times do I have to say that?

The Bible speaks God created man. Evolution speaks man evolved. Direct contradiction. You smooth this out by saying Genesis isn't literal it is allegorical. And in your case you say that poetry can only give truth not speak truly. Where is your proof that if Genesis is poetry that it isn't speaking of true events in a poetic form? Maybe you should look into poetry that actually speaks of true events.

I know for a fact that he would have believed geocentrism regardless of what the scientific theory was, since EVERYONE believed it with or without scientific theories up to the time of Galileo (unless you think he would have been the one person to divine the true nature of the solar system). And again, the point is not whether he believed in geocentrism, but how he interpreted Scripture, and his willingness to condemn the correct science because it conflicted with that interpretation.

So you then you can back up your assertion that EVERYONE believed geocentrism? You are a historian, you should be well aware of the findings in Egypt and Babylon about the charting of the nine planets and their rotations.

No, you seem to have ignored every post I have made in these forums. Would you say that the YEC ministries are failing to uphold the body of Christ when they attack the beliefs of their fellow Christians? Do you think you fail to uphold the body of Christ when you challenge the beliefs of your fellow Christians? Are you tearing it down? No? Then why would you assign different motives to me when I challenge the YEC teaching? If you saw a dangerous doctrine being taught, would you remain silent because to speak out would be a failure to "uphold the body of Christ"?

I am speaking out against you aren't I?

I fight to remove the stumbling block that is the YEC "either/or" teaching. That is why I am here. I know that doing so will result in more souls being won for the Kingdom. Isn't that what we all should be worried about?

You seem to confuse yourself with God. God saves souls, not you.

So, if a man calling himself a prophet believed in YEC'ism and said that he received this message of YEC'ism from a white light and was going to rewrite Scripture to make it clear that only YEC'ism was correct, would you say that this argued against YEC'ism in any way?

If ANYONE was saying they are going to rewrite the Bible a large red flashing light would go off. There is no need to rewrite the Bible, unless you are trying to lead people astray. And you notice where this so called prophet is lead people? To believe that death existed before the fall, that man evolved and was not created, that there were other primative beings around before Adam and Eve. Sound alot like what you believe in to me.