Interesting....

[Micaiah]

That was some link rmwilliamsll. I will try and read it all when I get some spare days. I found this tucked away in the appendices, and it seems these are the sentiments of the writer/editer

B. The New Testament’s View of the Historicity of Genesis 1-3

The way the New Testament interprets Genesis 1-3 is normative for the church. Leaving aside the specific question of the length of the creation week for a moment, we must acknowledge that the principle of the analogy of Scripture compels us to read Genesis 1-11 and particularly Genesis 1-3 as actual history. This is so both in terms of the formal treatment of these passages in inspired Scripture, and in terms of the vital biblical-theological issues at stake in them. In a word, Genesis 1-11 cannot be rejected as history without destroying Christianity. What follows is a survey of some of the evidence.

That appears a clear stand that the church accepts the historicity of the Creation account given in Genesis.

 

[Micaiah]

Here is an example of human reasoning by a YEC:

As far as I can tell there was a post-flood land bridge.
Evolution uses the theory of a land bridge as well.

http://www.swcp.com/creation/essay2b.htm

"Evolution doesn't account for geographical diversity or provide the evolutionary explanation for kangaroos only in Australia. Creation science predicts the observed Diaspora pattern subsequent to the Flood. Marsupial creatures dispersed more rapidly because their young are carried while placental mammals must nurture their young and the dispersion requires more time for placental mammals. Flood geology predicts the Southeast Asia to Australia land bridge (known to geologists) was exposed for a brief time during the Post-Flood ice age. Marsupials were able to use the bridge; mammals had not yet arrived. Subsequent warming eliminated the bridges, isolating certain population types."

It meets the first criteria, ie. it fits in with the historical account of Creation and early history of the world stated in Genesis. So it gets past first base. However, again it is man's reasoning, and should be recognised as such. It is useful to provide a possible explanation of how things may have been within the framework of our human understanding of science. But it may or may not be correct. YEC's do not elvate the value and integrity of evidence such as this above the plain teaching of Scripture.
If one day it was found to be incorrect, then we can easily bid the explanation farewell without changing our view of origins.

(This is in no way intended to demean the above explanation, but rather to point out the way YEC's view the value of such explanations.)

The problem with theistic evolution is that it elevates such speculation above Scripture. It adds to Scripture things that are not there, with appeals to man's interpretation of general revelation (ie. what we learn about God through Creation). Theories on how the world was created are tied in with what Scripture teaches. The plain meanings of words are changed, and the plain intent of statements are adjusted to accomodate the prevailing scientific theory. For example, statements like "Let the earth bring forth grass" are construed as a reference to evolution. There is nothing in that statement that gives the slightest hint of evolution. Just suppose that tomorrow someone made a discovery that falsified evolution. Straight away those who believe this interpretation are left with the dilemma that there interpretation of God's word is neither consistent with the plain teaching of Scripture, nor current scientific theories. I believe some of the day-age theories promoted in days gone by face this dilemma today.

In the past, some church leaders misconstrued the meanings of passages that were plainly intended to be interpretted metaphorically, and made them literal statements about science. They changed the plain intent of the passage to support the popular notion that the earth was flat, and that the earth is the centre of the universe - both of which were popular theories in their day. Today we have church leaders taking statements about people and events that Scripture clearly indicates were real people and real events, and claim they are symbolical or metaphorical. The net result is the same. Scientific theory is mixed with Scripture, and promoted on a par with Scripture. Man's interpretation of scientific evidence is given the same credence as the infallible word of God. In practice, it supersedes the plain truth taught in Scripture.

When this happens the integrity of God's word is undermined, and Christians are made to look very silly in the eyes of the scientific community.

It was pleasing to note in some of the previous posts that Christians recognise the limitations of scientific theory. Bones are discovered that make scientist rethink the latest alleged family tree. Given we recognise the limitations of scientific theory, lets be careful not to elevate it above what Scriptrue plainly teaches about our origins.

 

[Beowulf]

In the past, some church leaders misconstrued the meanings of passages that were plainly intended to be interpretted metaphorically, and made them literal statements about science. They changed the plain intent of the passage to support the popular notion that the earth was flat, and that the earth is the centre of the universe - both of which were popular theories in their day.

The science of that era authored the theories of geocentrism and heliocentrism. The early astronomers Ptolemy, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo shaped these theories within the scientific community. The church did not author geocentrism and heliocentrism but bought into these conclusions of scientific fact, massaged interpretation of scripture to fit and got burned. Maybe there's a lesson here.

/edit

The Church and Copernicus

"The Christian Church's doctrine was pretty much solidified 1500 years ago. It had been heavily influenced by Greek and Roman philosophers, especially in its views of science."

 

[herev]

Sorry, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean. Your comments seem to confirm what I have stated ie. man's reason must be subordinate to God's truth, and if a conflict exists, God's truth is upheld.

Man reads an ancient myth...thinks it sounds a lot like Genesis...considers there are aspects of Genesis that contradict current geological theories. Conclusion - Genesis must be myth. That is human reasoning.

Scripture is clear that Genesis is an historical record of origins. Therefore the above line of reasoning should be rejected.

thanks for everything

 

[Vance]

beowolf, where is your evidence that the Church did NOT read the Scripture geocentrically before science presented that model? There is none, because the geocentric reading is the plainest reading, and fit the "plain" view of what they saw around them at first glance, and without more detailed information. This is what also spawned the incorrect scientific theory as well. It was not science that misinformed the Church, who then adopted a different reading of Scripture. This is a HUGE cop-out presented by those wanting to absolve the Church and ignore the obvious parallels with current day YEC'ism.

The parallel is the same regarding the "which came first, the scientific interpretation or the scriptural interpretation" in regards to the age of the earth and origins. Just as with geocentrism, there was a time when both scientists and the Church believed that the earth was young creatures must have come into existence as they are now. And, in both cases, the Church read their Scripture consistently with scientific belief, since it was the most literal. Just as with heliocentrism, it was the scientists who first saw that this was not true, and the Church eventually came to accept it as well.

Not all, of course.

 

[Beowulf]

Was the Church correct to use science to support a belief?

 

[Vance]

The Church did not use science to support its belief.

The Church believed it because it was the plainest reading of the text.

It was the plainest reading of the text because that is what the actual human scribe God used to described the events believed, and what all the people reading it believed, so God let it be written in this way.

And the early scientists believed geocentrism for the same reasons as the scribe and the readers believed it, because it made the most sense until science discovered that the truth was different.

So, no, the Church did not read all those Scriptures as discussing a geocentric world because scientists told them this was true. They believed it because that was the most literal and plain reading of the text.


Here is what I wrote in another thread, which is applicable here as well. The question is why God would write Genesis 1 in a way that would be read in such a different way for so many years:

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.

 

[Beowulf]

How is it that credit for geocentrism or heliocentrism is not given to the Church but to those early astronomers? Science textbooks point to them. If the astronomers of the day were not the true authors of the theories then why is it taught that they were?

If those theories are being used today to discredit the Church can one not understand the ambivalence to once again agree with the scientific conclusion of the day? During debate with unbelievers they will invariably point out the mistakes made by the Church of that era as a weapon against christianity. I see little reason to give opponents of Christ any further such ammunition on something that is yet a conclusion based on interpretation of the evidence under scutiny.

If the scientific community had it so wrong also then why is that not being used to discredit science at the same magnitude of accusation as the church has had to bear? Is it ok for science to point fingers so indiscriminantly when in truth they had it wrong also? And if both had it wrong I would not be so quick to accuse either but then, that depends on which the accuser wishes to support.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If the scientific community had it so wrong also then why is that not being used to discredit science at the same magnitude of accusation as the church has had to bear? Is it ok for science to point fingers so indiscriminantly when in truth they had it wrong also? And if both had it wrong I would not be so quick to accuse either but then, that depends on which the accuser wishes to support.

Science is constantly point fingers at itself and challenging the accepted theories with new ones. Just a quick look at the history of science will show how theories are constantly trumped and cast aside because they are shown to be inadequate in light of new evidence. This doesn't become an indictment of science but a re-affirmation that it isn't a dogmatic institution that ignores evidence and must be right at all times.

 

[Vance]

I will explain it again, Beowolf. The Chrisitian community did not believe the sun revolved around the earth just because it said so in the Bible, or just because scientists taught it. They believed it because it is what their eyes saw as well, based on the simplest view of nature. It is for this reason that the scientists also believed in geocentrism. And what they did is actually develop models based on those assumptions from plain observation.

It was for these reasons as well that the Bible was originally written from a geocentric perspective as well. Because it LOOKS like the sun revolves around the Earth. God let the scribes He inspired use those words and phrases because that is what the scribes believed and the first readers would believe, so it would make sense to them.

So, no, the Church did not develop its belief about geocentrism from Scripture or science. What the Church did is to refuse to reinterpret their literal reading of Scripture when science discovered that what they ALL thought was wrong. This is where science differs from a literalist dogma. When the scienitists discovered that what they thought was wrong, they accepted this and moved on with the new knowledge. The Church would not do this for a very long time, since their literal reading of Scripture was tied to their incorrect beliefs about the solar system.

It was not because they had relied upon science to their detriment. It was not that science had relied upon Church dogma to its detriment. It was that when the truth was known, the Church refused to accept the truth because it conflicted with their literal reading of Scripture, which DID seem to follow the logical natural assumptions.

 

[gluadys]

So, no, the Church did not develop its belief about geocentrism from Scripture or science. What the Church did is to refuse to reinterpret their literal reading of Scripture when science discovered that what they ALL thought was wrong. This is where science differs from a literalist dogma. When the scienitists discovered that what they thought was wrong, they accepted this and moved on with the new knowledge. The Church would not do this for a very long time, since their literal reading of Scripture was tied to their incorrect beliefs about the solar system.

We have to remember that there was no distinction between science and religion until modern times. In the days that the OT was written, astronomy was one of the studies carried out by priests.

It is instructive to note that there are three differences between the biblical perspective and the modern scientific perspective and that these differences all have a different history vis-a-vis the church.

flat earth<---->spherical earth
earth at centre of universe<----->sun at centre of solar system
earth immobile, at rest<------>earth orbits sun

The last two are connected. So both of those were at stake in the Copernican revolution.

The first was resolved in a very different way.

The simplest natural view of the cosmos accepted by all ancient peoples whether priests, commoners or "scientists" (who, for the most part were also priests) is that the earth is broad and essentially flat with the sky stretched out above like a tent or dome.

Ancient models constructed on this simple observation show the earth as a disk surrounded by the ocean. It is set on foundations (in some mythologies the foundation is the back of an elephant or turtle---we don't see that in scripture) above the abyss. And the dome of the sky/heaven arches over it. The sun, moon and stars move through the atmosphere, beneath the firmament. When they set the move under the earth to return to their eastern rising point. This is referred to in Ecclesiates 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises."

This view was known to be incorrect as early as the 5th century BCE. Priest-astronomers in all lands were beginning to recognize the signs that the earth is a sphere. In Greece, those outside of the priesthood who studied nature were called philosophers, and it was a Greek philosopher, Eratosthenes, who recorded the first mathematical calculation of the diameter of a spherical earth in the second century BCE. Naturally, he would not have even thought of attempting this if he didn't already believe the earth was a sphere.

So the fact that the earth is a sphere was well-known to all educated people well before the birth of Jesus. This is an important fact to remember, for it means that all educated Christians of the time also knew and accepted the spherical shape of the earth, even though this is not the straight-forward view of earlier times based on simple observation and alluded to in the scriptures. Because this was already part of the Christian world-view, there was never any church/science conflict as a new model of the cosmos was developed and adopted. This new model is the Ptolemaic model which was accepted by all educated people from the 2nd to the 16th century CE.

Note: the small circles are called "epicycles". They were used to explain "retrograde motion"--times when the planets appear to be moving backwards in their orbits. One reason Copernicus proposed his model is that it rid the system of numerous epicycles which all required extensive calculation.


And during all this time, philosophy, including "natural philosophy" (aka science) was considered by the Church to be the "handmaid of theology". Just as theology was considered to be "the queen of the sciences".

So Copernicus was challenging a very integrated world-view that included science, philosophy and theology. But while science and philosophy quickly adapted and moved on, theology did not--for quite a while. This was actually the first time in history that there was a fundamental difference between science and religion. And it was simply due to the church not being willing to accept that its theology could be revised and still be a truthful interpretation of scripture.

 

[Vance]

Exactly. Thanks, you said it better than I was.

 

[Beowulf]

The Church was wrong about geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The scientific establishment was wrong about geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The Church resisted change for a longer period of time than the scientific community.
Kepler's ideas were a liftime struggle against both.
I see no point to prove the church was more wrong to declare evolution is more right.

 

[gluadys]

The Church was wrong about geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The scientific establishment was wrong about geocentrism and heliocentrism.
The Church resisted change for a longer period of time than the scientific community.
Kepler's ideas were a liftime struggle against both.
I see no point to prove the church was more wrong to declare evolution is more right.

Even though most of the Christian community has decided that the scientists are as right about evolution as they were about heliocentrism?