Is Science Fiction Hostile to Christianity?

[MechPebbles]

I started reading science fiction way back when I was in the university. I started by reading SF novels, then I added SF magazines (Asimov's, Analog, SF & Fantasy Mag and later, Interzone). When I discovered Gardner Dozois' annual anthologies, The Year's Best SF, I was totally hooked. But as the years went by, I found that more and more SF showed contempt toward people of faith, especially Christians. As an example, Dozois' anthologies would typically contain two stories that were overtly offensive to followers of Christ but by the time I read my last one, the 27th Annual Collection, I had counted six such stories in that volume alone. I became so sick of it all, I decided to drop SF altogether and changed to Victorian novels, Shakespeare and 19th Century French and Russian novels (Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are particularly good).

I recently came across some old unread issues Asimov's (2013) and started reading them. I enjoy most of the stories immensely and am surprised that not a single story is offensive in the least.

I would like to know from all you SF fans (the ones who read, not watch) if you have shared my experience. Do any of you like Gardner's anthologies? Have you read any issues after No. 27? Has there been a reversal in the hostility trend? Have SF writers decided that it is unprofitable to offend their fans? Is it safe to go back to SF? I have been debating if I should get an online subscription to Asimov's or perhaps it makes better sense to just buy single copies and test the waters.

 

[LionL]

Sc-Fi isn't hostile to Christianity - certain authors may be (that's true of any type of writing), but not the genre as a whole. Look at CS Lewis for example - a more devout Christian would be hard to find and his works of Sci-Fi generally promote Christianity.

 

[keith99]

Over 90% of Science Fiction starts by asking het question "What if?".

There are a lot of what Ifs that Christians won't like.

 

[Wgw]

If we're mature about our faith, we can differentiate between cosmological speculation and inferred reality, and can appreciate all SF as fictional. Thus the only annoying SF is that which trashes religion on various secularist grounds; it might have been interesting in 1900, but is now roughly on a par with "bug eyed monsters."

 

[SilverBlade]

If you let science fiction bother you as a Christian, it's not the genre that's the problem...

 

[Radrook]

It can be both hostile and supportive of Christianity. But the general impression I get is one which is detrimental to it. How? Well, here are some ways:

1. By supporting abiogenesis = contradicts Genesis and calls Jesus liar.

2. By depicting atheistic evolution = Contradicts Genesis

3. By depicting a lawless chaotic universe where despotism rules. = The devil rules the Cosmos.

4. By depicting creatures that are pure evil [Alien] = All God's works are not good.

5. By depicting an Earth at the Mercy of destruction by our Sun: = Godless Chaotic universe

6. By depicting a devastated Earth = Promised paradise Earth a lie.

8. By depicting an alien-invaded Earth = An absent or uncaring God. Earth is not special.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, Radrock, but most of your claims are highly questionable. True, evolution does contradict Genesis, but it does not follow that Jesus is then a liar. Divinely inspired as it may be, teh Bible was written by writers subject to the limitations imposed by living in a semi-barbaric, pre-scientific culture. Under the circumstances, one would not expect them to evidence any sort of accurate scientific knowledge about the universe. God always works with the grain, not against it. God is a careful carpenter. God can only move as fast as we are ready and capable. It would be ridiculous, then, to expect God would have imparted all sorts of advanced scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelis and expected them to understand.
There is no doubt that the universe is in fact chaotic. It is a synthesis of both order and chaos. There is no doubt about that. That, however, does not mean it is Godless or that Satan is ruling. What it means is that the universe is not like a watch, but more like a living organism. Everything, all matter is alive, has a mind, and some degree of freedom. In addition, continual creativity is taking place, and creativity always makes for some real degree of chaos. The fact that the earth is at the mercy of the sun does not mean Godless chaos. What it means is, as I just said, the universe is an organism. In an organism no parts or processes go on independently of the rest. Everything is related to everything else. Reality is an interconnected web of relationships. And that is order in the highest sense of the term. WE and the sum are not mere separate objects, each going his own way. Now, with everything independent and doing its own thing, that would be chaos. Instead, we and the sun enjoy a relationship, each affecting the other. If the Sun did knok out, we would no longer exist, true. However, the changes of that happening is extremely slight. Of course, a billion years from now, yes, the sun may be a cinder and the earth long gone. But then, God will provide new-found possibilities for creativity. God is continually creating and that means the old must always perish away for the new.

 

[Radrook]

Response



My response was based on the required assumption that the hypothetical reader or viewer of the sci fi is a believer in Christ and a believer in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It does not obviously apply to someone like you who holds the Bible in derision and contemptuously calls those who wrote it ignorant barbarians and who considers believers in its creation account imbeciles.

Obviously, persons like you, would accept any and all drivel presented in a sci fi film or novel as plausible as long as it fits in with your never-observed-in-nature, never-forced-to-happen-in-a-lab, billions-of-happy-improbable-accidents abiogenesis idea and your fish-gradually-turning-into-people fairy tale.

In short, your response is completely out of place on this thread on two counts.

1. Its insulting tone- [which I will report and place you on my ignore list.]
2. Its irrelevancy

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you quite grasp where I am coming from, Radbrock. I approach the Bible from the standpoint of serious biblical study into its literary history and construction. Like it or not, the historical fact of the matter is that it is the product of a pre-scientific, semi-barbaric society. That does not mean they were dumb; it just means, as I said, they really had no advanced scientific knowledge to go on. Expecting God should have provided them otherwise is as ridiculous as arguing God should have presented Columbus with a nuclear sub and said here are the keys, have at it. As to the society being semi-barbaric, take an honest look at the OT, how the Israelites sought to exterminate the indigenous population. Check out the OT God, who is anything but loving, largely a warrior God who instructs Moses to act without mercy. Check out the biblical laws, where slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and beating slaves is all sanctified. Any society which condones slavery is, as far as I am concerned, semi-barbaric, including the US South.
I think that many laity have a rather naïve understanding of teh academic and scholarly world of biblical studies. They think it should be an extension of the ways things are said and done in their church and Sunday-school class. Forget it. The world of academia is a completely ballgame, with completely different, rules, goals, and sometimes reaches conclusions the laity may find threatening. Everyone views Scripture through a lens. Most laity view Scripture through the lens provided by their church's teaching, which are often taken to be unquestionable. Many laity go to Scripture, with the idea firmly implanted in their minds that the Bible is inerrant. The way the Bible describes things as happening is exactly the way they did happen. No question about it. Nothing else will do or will even be considered. In biblical studies, that is probably the worst thing you can do. In biblical studies, you approach the Bible open-minded. You view Bible through a lens created by a healthy skepticism for traditional church teaching. Maybe the Bible is inerrant, maybe not. Maybe Moses wrote the Pentateuch, maybe not. Let us do a rigorous literary hi8storical study of the texts and base our conclusions on that. Sometimes the conclusions reached can be quite threating to the laity. You would be instantly persona non grata in many Sunday-school classes the minute you suggested that the Mosaic authority of the Pentateuch was debunked years ago. Education alienates. Occupational hazard.

 

[RDKirk]

If we're mature about our faith, we can differentiate between cosmological speculation and inferred reality, and can appreciate all SF as fictional. Thus the only annoying SF is that which trashes religion on various secularist grounds; it might have been interesting in 1900, but is now roughly on a par with "bug eyed monsters."

Yes, this.

 

[RDKirk]

Response



My response was based on the required assumption that the hypothetical reader or viewer of the sci fi is a believer in Christ and a believer in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It does not obviously apply to someone like you who holds the Bible in derision and contemptuously calls those who wrote it ignorant barbarians and who considers believers in its creation account imbeciles.

Obviously, persons like you, would accept any and all drivel presented in a sci fi film or novel as plausible as long as it fits in with your never-observed-in-nature, never-forced-to-happen-in-a-lab, billions-of-happy-improbable-accidents abiogenesis idea and your fish-gradually-turning-into-people fairy tale.

In short, your response is completely out of place on this thread on two counts.

1. Its insulting tone- [which I will report and place you on my ignore list.]
2. Its irrelevancy

I like cartoons with talking rabbits, too.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are overlooking an important issue, RDKirk. Science-fiction, good science-fiction, is not just pure fiction. Verne did an uncanny job of depicting a nuclear submarine. H.G. Wells did an excellent job of depicting the future of warfare. He wrote "War of the Worlds" as a symbolic warning that future warfare would not be heroic or nobel, but cold, impersonal machines fighting against one another. Truer words were never spoken. The idea of an invisibility cloak has been taken seriously by science and there has been considerable work done to manufacture one, with some stunning results to date.
I do not see how science-fiction is opposed to religion. Matter of fact our minister is currently teaching a course on science-fiction and religion. If we encountered alien beings, I can see no way in which that would threaten religion. It would simply go to prove God's creation is on a grander scale than we may have imagined. Also, we tend to demonize that which we do not understand. Hence, aliens are stereotyped as horrible creatures. Who says? They may be more like us than we might expect. If they weren't and we got into a battle, who says we wouldn't win? Why would that necessarily threaten anyone's faith in God?

 

[Radrook]

Remark:
Sorry, Radrock, but most of your claims are highly questionable. True, evolution does contradict Genesis, but it does not follow that Jesus is then a liar.

Response:

Well Hogfeed

Jesus was not an evolutionist. So if we claim that evolution took place then we are saying that Jesus, who believed the Genesis account and quoted from it as reliable historical fact, was indeed lying.

------------------------------------------------------------

Remark:
God always works with the grain, not against it. God is a careful carpenter. God can only move as fast as we are ready and capable. It would be ridiculous, then, to expect God would have imparted all sorts of advanced scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelis and expected them to understand.

Response:

Defective premise:

That’s ridiculous!
It isn’t necessary to impart advanced scientific knowledge in order to provide a simple explanation of what he did. The Genesis account is perfectly understandable as it stands.
If indeed he had used evolution then a simple explanation of using evolution would have also sufficed.


Remark:

Divinely inspired as it may be, teh Bible was written by writers subject to the limitations imposed by living in a semi-barbaric, pre-scientific culture. Under the circumstances, one would not expect them to evidence any sort of accurate scientific knowledge about the universe.

Response:
Divine inspiration nullifies any handicap of that ilk. The Bible had one purpose-to reconcile mankind to God. So going into scientific specifics at every available turn would have been contrary to its purpose.

Furthermore there are many scriptures which indicate that they were being provided with superior knowledge. The expansion of the universe and the almost infinite number of stars which are described as being countless are just two.

BTW
That sarcastic reference to talking animals is also ridiculous since the Bible clearly points out that the ones talking were not the animals themselves but spirit creatures using the animals as puppets. Why some folks insist on criticizing a book that they have obviously not taken the time to read is beyond me.

 

[Hoghead1]

Where on earth, Radrook, did you get the idea I talked about animals talking? You have got me mixed up with someone else.
I reject your premise, because there are no simple explanations of evolution. Unless, you have a solid background in modern science, it would be impossible to make sense out of. Many people today have trouble comprehending it. Whether you want to believe it or not, evolution is a fact, and that means God works through evolution and not according to what Genesis has to say taken literally. Incidentally, there is a long tradition in Christianity of not taking Genesis literally. In his "Genesis in the Literal Sense," Augustine argued that you could not take genesis literally. God does not work through successive movements in time. Hence, God crated the whole of creation in a single instant, poof, like that. The reason why the text spreads it out over several days is because God knew he had to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, who are time bound. When y 0u make a blanket claim that God imparts superior knowledge to us, you maybe need put pout some qualifiers on this. The church fathers strongly believed that God had to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, talk "baby talk" (Calvin's term) to us, due to your fallen nature and total inability to comprehend the real nature of God and his work. Moving on. The fact they said the stars were without number does not denote advanced astronomy. One can easily surmise that by simply looking at the sky. The fact they viewed the earth as flat with the Sun revolving around it clearly shows they had no knowledge how the solar system works. Also, there are no references to an expanding universe. Where did you get that idea? It is interesting to note that Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, stressed that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson, but to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects and speak in ways the common man sees the universe. There is absolutely no indication God supplied them with any superior scientific knowledge. Why do you think God did not give Columbus a nuclear sub or the Israelites Stealth aircraft to insure their victory? Use your head, man.

 

[Radrook]

Where on earth, Radrook, did you get the idea I talked about animals talking? You have got me mixed up with someone else.

I was referring to the person who placed the comment about talking animals and said absolutely nothing else. If that wasn't you then my apologies.

I reject your premise, because there are no simple explanations of evolution.

What premise?

Unless, you have a solid background in modern science, it would be impossible to make sense out of. Many people today have trouble comprehending it. Whether you want to believe it or not, evolution is a fact,

The reason why creationist scientists reject evolution as fact isn't because they are ignorant of how it works.

....and that means God works through evolution and not according to what Genesis has to say taken literally. Incidentally, there is a long tradition in Christianity of not taking Genesis literally.
In his "Genesis in the Literal Sense," Augustine argued that you could not take genesis literally. God does not work through successive movements in time. Hence, God crated the
whole of creation in a single instant, poof, like that. The reason why the text spreads it out over several days is because God knew he had to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, who are time bound. When y 0u make a blanket claim that God imparts superior knowledge to us, you maybe need put pout some qualifiers on this. The church fathers strongly believed that God had to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects, talk "baby talk" (Calvin's term) to us, due to your fallen nature and total inability to comprehend the real nature of God and his work.

Strawman since I never claimed any of those things.

BTW

What Agustin or any other church Father argued is totally irrelevant if it contradicts what the Bible clearly tells us. Also, please note that Church Fathers became notorious for introducing all types of anti-biblical ideas into their writings. Some they borrowed from the horde of heathens that were becoming nominal Christians at the point of the sword. Others from such pagan sources as Greek philosophy of Plato. Many can be traced straight to the city of Babylon with its pantheon of gods. So I fail to be impressed.

Moving on. The fact they said the stars were without number does not denote advanced astronomy. One can easily surmise that by simply looking at the sky.

I did not claim that they were a people who were known for advanced astronomy nor that they were being provided with such knowledge for the purpose of making them advanced i astronomy.

As for that obvious conclusion of numberless stars you claim is an obviously natural one, that is absolutely not true. There is darkness between stars which indicates that they cannot go on forever. Otherwise one would conclude that the whole sky should be ablaze in light. Furthermore, the exact number of stars visible to the naked eye was known. So there was absolutely no empirical basis for that declaration to be made since there were more people in a small city in Israel than there were visible stars in the sky at night. LOL!

The fact they viewed the earth as flat with the Sun revolving around it clearly shows they had no knowledge how the solar system works.

You mean the reference to the ends of the Earth or four corners of the Earth or rising and setting of the Sun? Those are merely idiomatic expressions which are even employed today..

Also, there are no references to an expanding universe. Where did you get that idea?[/quote ]

Response:

From your viewpoint of course there isn't any reference. However some Christians understand the scripture found in Isaiah about God stretching out the heavens as a reference to the cosmological expansion detected via the red shift. That doesn't mean that Isaiah or the readers of Isaiah at that time understood it as we might. It only means that it was uttered under inspiration for the benefit of future generations who would readily recognize it as inspired.

It is interesting to note that Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, stressed that God did not intend to give us an astronomy lesson, but to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects and speak in ways the common man sees the universe.

Response:

It is also interesting to note that the Lord Jesus Christ considered Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew scriptures historically-accurate documents.

It is also interesting to note that Jesus warned us about placing human tradition above God's Word.

Also interesting to note is that many Church Fathers introduced so many heathen ideas into the Church that it ultimately came to be considered the fulfillment of the great Apostasy foretold by the Apostle Paul and which eventually instigated what is called Protestantism via its abuses of human rights and mangling of Christian doctrine.

One Church father even castrated himself because of his twisted view of scriptures. Other prominent church leaders approved of inquisitions which had people tortured heinously tortured by having their,eyes gauged out, or being skinned alive before being roasted alive at the stake.

So thanks but no thanks. I will listen to what Jesus said instead.

There is absolutely no indication God supplied them with any superior scientific knowledge. Why do you think God did not give Columbus a nuclear sub or the Israelites Stealth aircraft to insure their victory? Use your head, man.

Response:

I never claimed that God is involved in supplying mankind with technological help.
Where do you derive that Idea from? I only pointed out that he directly or indirectly revealed certain truths about nature that were not known at that time. Anything beyond that is totally your idea.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree with your rebuttal, Radrook. Many creation-science people and authorities have little or no proper scientific education, sport totally bogus degrees, and are in point of fact offering nothing but the unqualified judgments of unqualified amateurs. Also, many of their methods are not at all in keeping with anywhere near the standards of true scientific research. Basically, I view creation science as a propaganda mill, where either the proponents are ignorant about science or know better but want to present deliberately falsified information. For example, even the creation-science community has admitted, in print, that their moon-dust argument, the human-footprints-with-the dinosaurs argument, and the variable-c argument all all bogus. Yet creation-science people still use them.

You do not appear to have a very accurate understanding of the church fathers and early history of the church. Yes, the fathers did incorporate many "pagan" ideas. As Augustine and others pointed out, God did provide "treasures among the pagans that Christians should not hesitate to use. You are overlooking the fact that the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. it tells us very little about how God is built, for example. At best, it gives but snapshots of God, many of which appear very contradictory. it's up to the reader to assemble them into a unified whole. The early fathers realized all this and therefore incorporated Hellenic metaphysics into their speculations in developing their picture of the true nature of God, God as he is in his own nature. Today, many contemporary theologians, such as myself, have seriously questioned this classical model of God, true. I and others have pointe out that it stands in tension with Scripture on many points. However, I do not overlook they had a biblical mandate for what they were arguing. Scripture is contradictory here. more than one passage does claim God is totally immutable and by logical implication without emotion or compassion, as the father claimed. However, there are others that claim God is subject to emotion and change. I believe we can do a far better job of reconciling these claims than the fathers, but I don't think they were lost souls or inappropriate in looking to Hellenic metaphysics either. I also look to many extra-biblical sources and considerations in working out an alternative to the classical model.

Your claims about the biblical cosmology are also false. It was very common in the ancient world to view the world as flat. The Bible here is not talking in mere figures of speech. The Bible means what it says. Granted, you might get away with your argument that they meant only figures of speech here, but then you would have to show passages where they did in fact speak of the world as round and the center of the solar system, and no such ones exist. As an example, Isaiah has God sitting up on top of the circle or dome of the sky. Why? Because the sky looks like a dome. The prophet is so saying to assure the reader God can see clearly everything going on down here, see all us grasshoppers, etc. Thus, the writer is assuming the world must definitely be flat. Otherwise, God looking down could not see everything, could only see what is at the top of the sphere. merely saying the stars are without number in no way proves they had any advanced scientific knowledge. It probably means they just thought h there were too many for anyone to count. Incidentally, that is also a point Mark Twain once made, and he was no cosmologist. Furthermore, modern cosmology does not assume the universe goes on and on forever. It is given a definite size, for example, huge, but still finite. Also, it was the Greek and other civilizations who earned the reputation for being the first astronomers, not the ancient Hebrews. Furthermore, if as you claim, the ancient Hebrews possessed all sorts of advanced scientific knowledge like we have today, wehre are their computers, math calculations, etc.?

At no point did Christ or anyone else in Scripture ever claim that he Bible was inerrant. A useful teaching tool, yes. But something can be a useful teaching tool and not be inerrant. Also neither Christ nor any one else in Scripture had the whole Bible, the Bible as we have it. At no point, does the Bible state a list of what books are canonical and what not. Where does the Bible identify the Apocrypha and say whether it is or is not canonical?
Glad to hear from you. Always enjoy hearing criticisms. Keeps me on my toes, stimulates me to outthink the critics and provide rational rebuttals to demolish their arguments like a house of cards.

 

[Radrook]

Can't say as I agree with your rebuttal, Radrook. Many creation-science people and authorities have little or no proper scientific education, sport totally bogus degrees, and are in point of fact offering nothing but the unqualified judgments of unqualified amateurs. Also, many of their methods are not at all in keeping with anywhere near the standards of true scientific research. Basically, I view creation science as a propaganda mill, where either the proponents are ignorant about science or know better but want to present deliberately falsified information. For example, even the creation-science community has admitted, in print, that their moon-dust argument, the human-footprints-with-the dinosaurs argument, and the variable-c argument all all bogus. Yet creation-science people still use them.

Well, I can’t say I agree with your disagreement with what you refer to as my rebuttal.
That is very quaint since there are lists of legitimate scientists who are believers in an ID.
Einstein, Robert A Millikan, Planck, Mendel, Occam, Isaac Newton, Bacon, and a host of others were all theists. Most Nobel prizes in science are won by theists. So your claim that a brilliant scientific mind will automatically conclude atheism is bogus.

Also, in terms of honesty, I find your atheist scientists extremely untrustworthy both in they application of the scientific method and in their refusal to remain consistent when data deemed controversial comes up. In fact, some have even gone to the extreme of outright falsification of data as is evidenced by the hilarious hoaxes which they attempted to pass off as science in order to gain popular support for their anti-biblical atheistic ideas.

In fact, some of those hoaxed evolutionist ideas are still being taught as if they were fact. Other atheist ideas which have never been observed to occur in nature nor in a lab are also put forth as veritable fact simply because the alternative would be an admission of an ID. So I find them FAR from being a trustworthy lot. More like a fanatical priesthood which offers up quackery dressed up with a very thin veneer of science. So I guess we are similar in way in that area.

You do not appear to have a very accurate understanding of the church fathers and early history of the church. Yes, the fathers did incorporate many "pagan" ideas. As Augustine and others pointed out, God did provide "treasures among the pagans that Christians should not hesitate to use.

Well, you do not appear to have a very accurate knowledge of the horrendous harm that these so-called fathers inflicted on humanity with their pseudo biblical ideas. Otherwise you would not be constantly waxing melodic concerning their pristine virtues.

You are overlooking the fact that the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. it tells us very little about how God is built, for example. At best, it gives but snapshots of God, many of which appear very contradictory. it's up to the reader to assemble them into a unified whole. The early fathers realized all this and therefore incorporated Hellenic metaphysics into their speculations in developing their picture of the true nature of God, God as he is in his own nature. Today, many contemporary theologians, such as myself, have seriously questioned this classical model of God, true. I and others have pointe out that it stands in tension with Scripture on many points.

Sorry but the only Early Church Fathers I recognize are Jesus, his Apostles and those who are recorded in the book of Acts as their faithful trustworthy assistants. Those who followed them fell prey to the apostasy which was in great measure supported and propagated by those whom you choose to call the Church Fathers.



Acts 20:29-31

"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.



That is why their teachings differ in so many ways from those that were taught during the first century CE. If they had not deviated as foretold, then there would be no contradictions between what they taught and what the Apostles and Jesus taught.

But you yourself admit that they considered the inspired word of God deficient and presumptuously began borrowing ideas from non biblical pagan sources.

The Apostate Fathers

Volume 1

St. Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus


We do not deny that there is truth to be found in the writings of Christianity's church fathers; on the contrary, many examples of truths they confessed will be pointed out. But what we are searching for are those conclusive proofs of their being wolves in sheep's clothing: false doctrine mingled in with the true.

Because the false teacher is profane, he cannot discern the difference between what is truly of God and what is not. He holds both the revealed truth and his own thoughts in equal esteem. The distinguishing mark of a true man of God is not merely that he speaks truth to the church, but that he speaks only the truth to the church. That is the real measure of a man sent from God (Jn. 3:34), and it is the holy measure by which the writings of these "fathers" stand unquestionably condemned.
http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM

However, I do not overlook they had a biblical mandate for what they were arguing. Scripture is contradictory here. more than one passage does claim God is totally immutable and by logical implication without emotion or compassion, as the father claimed. However, there are others that claim God is subject to emotion and change. I believe we can do a far better job of reconciling these claims than the fathers, but I don't think they were lost souls or inappropriate in looking to Hellenic metaphysics either. I also look to many extra-biblical sources and considerations in working out an alternative to the classical model.

You are confusing immutability or changelessness of character with inability to react to differing circumstances within the parameters of that character. The Bible never claims that God is incapable of adjusting his viewpoint to meet the requirements at hand. LOL! That is a funny idea!

Your claims about the biblical cosmology are also false. It was very common in the ancient world to view the world as flat. The Bible here is not talking in mere figures of speech. The Bible means what it says. Granted, you might get away with your argument that they meant only figures of speech here, but then you would have to show passages where they did in fact speak of the world as round and the center of the solar system, and no such ones exist. As an example, Isaiah has God sitting up on top of the circle or dome of the sky. Why? Because the sky looks like a dome. The prophet is so saying to assure the reader God can see clearly everything going on down here, see all us grasshoppers, etc.

Thus, the writer is assuming the world must definitely be flat. Otherwise, God looking down could not see everything, could only see what is at the top of the sphere. merely saying the stars are without number in no way proves they had any advanced scientific knowledge. It probably means they just thought h there were too many for anyone to count.

Response:
The writer was well aware of God’s ability to see all that he wanted to see regardless if distance or geographical location because the author believe the creator to be almighty.


The eyes of the Lord are in every place. Proverbs 15:3


He had the same sentiments Jesus expressed in the scripture below.

Luke 18:27

N I V
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."



BTW
I never claimed that it was uncommon for people of the ancient world to view the universe as geocentric and the earth as flat. Neither did I claim that the Israelites had a different viewpoint. Please reread what I said,. Otherwise you will be repeatedly posting strawman arguments.

About the stars simply being too many to count, as I previously said, they had already been counted with the naked eye. So that argument goes completely contrary to that fact.

Neither does the Bible say that stars go on forever. It merely says they are humanly uncountable.
God of course can count them and even has a name for each one

Isaiah 40:26 ►

New International Version
Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.


DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A FLAT EARTH?
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.
http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/flatearth/doesbibleteach.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, that is also a point Mark Twain once made, and he was no cosmologist. Furthermore, modern cosmology does not assume the universe goes on and on forever. It is given a definite size, for example, huge, but still finite. Also, it was the Greek and other civilizations who earned the reputation for being the first astronomers, not the ancient Hebrews.

Response:

The stars are too many for us to count. That was the gist of what was being said. The scripture is using hyperbole, a very common and totally legitimate rhetorical device.

Furthermore, if as you claim, the ancient Hebrews possessed all sorts of advanced scientific knowledge like we have today, wehre are their computers, math calculations, etc.?

Response:

Again! That’s not the view I hold as explained in my previous reply.

At no point did Christ or anyone else in Scripture ever claim that he Bible was inerrant. A useful teaching tool, yes. But something can be a useful teaching tool and not be inerrant.

Response:
Well, not everyone agrees with you on that:

Excerpt:

Inerrancy is an important doctrine, the denial or even diluting of which may result in serious doctrinal and life errors.59
Support for Inerrancy
from the Teachings of Christ

A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.

Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-bible-inerrant-word-god

Also neither Christ nor any one else in Scripture had the whole Bible, the Bible as we have it.

Response:

Being the Son of God, Christ had the entire Bible in his mind.
But you mean the whole sixty six books?
Well, what we have very effectively accomplishes the job that God intended it to do-provide us with the necessary knowledge for salvation. So the deficiency you seem to be desperately trying to establish doesn’t exist.

John 17:3
And this is the way to have eternal life--to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

At no point, does the Bible state a list of what books are canonical and what not. Where does the Bible identify the Apocrypha and say whether it is or is not canonical?

Response:

Again, that in no way prevented God from making sure that we receive the message of salvation.

Glad to hear from you. Always enjoy hearing criticisms. Keeps me on my toes, stimulates me to outthink the critics and provide rational rebuttals to demolish their arguments like a house of cards.

My experience in discussing such matters over many years with a host of atheists has taught me that they usually proudly proclaim all arguments as being completely demolished. It is a very common boast with a very flimsy foundation.

 

[Hoghead1]

You made some pretty incredible claims, Radrook, so you should provide some incredible evidence. Well, where is it? So far all you have shown is that you have an incredibly vicious, disrespectful attitude toward science and the church fathers and absolutely no understanding how to properly exegete Scripture.

 

[Radrook]

You made some pretty incredible claims, Radrook, so you should provide some incredible evidence. Well, where is it? So far all you have shown is that you have an incredibly vicious, disrespectful attitude toward science and the church fathers and absolutely no understanding how to properly exegete Scripture.

Really? Even though I provided both scriptural support and reliable sources while you made no effort whatsoever to substantiate your claims and merely replied with ad hominem and sarcastic remarks? With all due respect but such a response indicates either ignorance of the principles of proper argumentation, or an inability to properly substantiate claims.

Mere opinion interlaced with ill-concealed insults prove prove absolutely NOTHING. In fact, it usually indicates that the one employing them doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Hoghead1]

Same to you, fella.