The Lesson of Geocentrism

[Vance]

YEC's often say that they are not geocentrists because the Scripture does not teach geocentrism, and that is right. But the point of the whole story is that the Christian community of the time *believed* that the Scripture taught geocentrism, and they were wrong. This is the lesson we must learn for the current debate.

Before Galileo began promoting the heliocentric view of the universe, the Church believed that the sun and stars, the entire universe in fact, revolved around the earth. This was based, they believed, on a simple, plain reading of Scripture. The entire scheme of Genesis 1 made it clear: the earth was there at the very beginning and the rest of the universe was built around it. The sun and moon were "greater and lesser lights" *for the earth*, the stars part of the firmament over the earth. The earth played the central role, it was the location of God’s special creation, Man, and everything they read conformed to the idea of the earth being at the physical and literal center of things, with all else revolving around it. And there were other Scripture throughout the Bible which backed this up, which discussed the fixity of the earth, and the movement of the heavens.

Also, their own eyes could see the geocentric nature of their world. They were in one spot and everything revolved around them. Why go out and seek for these convoluted theories to describe something when both the Scripture and their own eyes made it clear that geocentrism was true? It must be admitted that *without* our current knowledge of the universe, if we placed ourselves back in their position, we would read the Scripture the same way.

When Galileo began presenting the heliocentric theory, the Christian community, both Catholic and Protestant, said it was contrary to Scripture and, therefore, must be false. In fact, they went so far as to say that if Geocentrism were true, the Scripture was not true. They were entirely incompatible. And, if those Scriptures which they believed established Geocentrism were proven "false" then what about the rest of Scripture? Where would it end? And theologically: Galileo was pointing out that the sun was one star among countless others, and the earth was one planet among countless others. The Earth was just one of those specks in the universe. This was all too much, it just could not be true. If the Earth was not the physical center and focal point of the universe, then what does that say about God’s special creation of Man? Where does that leave us? No, you could not be a Heliocentrist AND a truly be a Christian. Galileo was a heretic.

The Christian community also called on the support of scientists who, up to the time Galileo presented heliocentrism, also believed in geocentrism. They were all Christian, of course, and without any real evidence to the contrary, also accepted the Biblical and observable evidence for geocentrism. Galileo’s theory was simply that, an unproven theory.

Eventually, the proof began rolling in and more and more scientists began accepting that it must be true. But many in the Church held out, saying that those who were accepting heliocentrism were simply selling out, accepting the scientific conclusions of men over God’s Word. Still, more and more Christians began accepting this scientific conclusion, and found that, after all, it did NOT destroy Christianity, it did NOT mean that the Bible could not be trusted, it need not affect anyone’s faith in the least.

They realized that it had been the Church’s traditional interpretation of Scripture which had been incorrect all along, and that the scientific theory which had SEEMED to contradict God’s Word really did not. Almost the entire Christian community did as we do today in regards to geocentrism: we allow the evidence of God’s Creation to inform our interpretation of God’s written Word.

But there were still hold-outs even deep into this century. I remember reading tracts written in the mid-sixties which said that the world had been duped by an unproven scientific theory which was still contrary to a plain reading of Scripture. This seemed to pretty much peter out, though, when we got to the moon.

I think that in one hundred years, if Jesus tarries, we will look back on the current debate regarding evolution and an old earth just as we now look back on the geocentrism fiasco. The Church will realize that it was it’s own traditional reading of Scripture which was incorrect, and allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform it’s interpretation of Scripture. Most already do. This does not mean, of course, that the concepts of evolution itself will not continue to be fine-tuned and we will know a lot more about how it all works together. Just as Galileo had some things wrong with his concept of heliocentrism, there are still some areas to clarify and fight over regarding the particulars of exactly how God used evolutionary processes in His Creative process.

 

[California Tim]

As you rightly acknowledge, the Bible does not, nor did it ever teach geocentrism, so we are comparing apples to oranges in this type of debate. The Bible is, on the other hand, quite clear about creation, the origins of life and man. To compare an erroneous doctrine deduced by man's own understanding (geocentrism) with that of the creation account which is not fuzzy, disjointed or vague in its exposition is a "strawman" argument that fails to prove the point. In fact I could turn it around as evidence that manmade doctrine never supercedes the truth of scripture as revealed in due time. Right now, mankind is attempting to imply what the Bible says in oppostion to what it plainly states is the origin of mankind just as with geocentrism, mankind was attempting to "imply" what the Bible was saying based on the knowledge of the time. Both times the manmade doctrines are wrong. The Bible stands on its own merit.

 

[Vance]

To expand upon something I just stated in another thread:

But that is just not right. A particular reading of the Bible teaches geocentrism. You and I happen to think it is the wrong reading. A particular reading of the the Bible teaches YEC'ism. I think this is also a wrong reading, you think it is the right reading. So, for me the parallel fits exactly, apples and apples. You toss "clearly" around, but saying it is so does not make it so. Geocentrists, including the modern ones, have always felt that the "clear" reading of Scripture is geocentrism. Believe me, they have been just as sure of that point as you are of Scripture "clearly" teaching YEC'ism.

And, yes, it was mankind who attempted to God's Word at the time of geocentrism, and at every other time throughout its existence since it is mankind who is reading it.

But the geocentrists are as sure as you about what the "plain" reading is. To this day, those who hang on to geocentrism do so IN SPITE of the scientific evidence, and base their position on the "plain" reading of Scripture. Go to their websites which I have linked all over the place and see what they say.

You wish to sweep geocentrism under the rug by twisting it around to be a secular influence, but this is not what happened, but it does make for a better story for YEC'ism. Look at the position of Calvin, Luther, the Church and modern geocentrists today. They believed in geocentrism because that is what the Bible points directly to in their mind.

Here is what I wrote in an earlier thread on this topic:


For a more detailed answer as to why he [God] would do it this way [allowing an inspired writer to write it in a way that could cause confusion], 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 almost 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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I, like Vance, believe that the analogy of geocentricism to YECism is an instructive and valuable one.

From Gen 1:1 the Hebrew Scriptures are geocentric. The point of the observer in Gen 1 is on the earth. Light/darkness, dry/wet motifs are ONLY planet bound, they are not from an observer in space. From the very first -YOM, separating it into night and day, it is geocentric. Moses was completely unaware that the earth moved, that the earth revolved around the sun, or that the universe was incredibly old and huge. The cosmology of the Scriptures is the cosmology of the ancient near east. A flat earth with the sun, moon and stars revolving around it. They were unaware of Australia, that the night in the middle east was day there, or that their seasons were opposite Israel's. The whole world was dark or light at the same time, for their world was just a part of what we know as the earth. And that is the consistent POV of the OT-geocentric, and bounded by the ANE cosmology.

The question is not whether they believed that the sun/stars/moon revolved around the world, but if God intends to teach and instruct us that this is true. The OT uses the motif of ANE cosmology to teach it's lessons, it doesn't require the cosmology to be transmitted and believed by all Christians (or Jews for that matter). The cosmology is, as H. Van Till puts it, the packaging of the message, the box the gift comes in, not the gift itself.

Anyone that argues that the OT is not geocentric, is wrong. The real issue is if God requires us to believe it as did the ancient inspired writers.

 

[Vance]

If I could summarize one of your points, while the Scriptures may be written geocentrically (from a geocentric perspective), the Scriptures do not teach geocentrism.

The converting of the style of writing into a factual statement is where the danger lies.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If I could summarize one of your points, while the Scriptures may be written geocentrically (from a geocentric perspective), the Scriptures do not teach geocentrism.

The converting of the style of writing into a factual statement is where the danger lies.

i think that is exactly right.

the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures believed that the world is flat, that the sun and stars revolve around the earth. God allowed them not just to believe it, but to incorporate this thinking into the structure of the OT itself. Mythos vs logos is an important distinction here, and we do injustice to the Scriptures if we try to read them without understanding the culture to which they are first addressed.

geocentricism is assumed as the common cosmology of the day. where worship of the LORD GOD conflicts with the notions of this system, Scripture speaks-loudly. the sun, moon, stars are not gods. but where the issues are not important-geo vs helio, Scripture does not correct the prevailing notions of the Israelites.

the error the geocentrics make today, is to make the packaging, the structures of thought being used to convey the message, into part of the essential message. That is why reading the geocentrics is such a lesson in hermeneutics, how exactly to separate the things USED, from those things being TAUGHT as required.

the same issue pops up in cross cultural evangelism. was it necessary to put mumus on the Hawaiians in order to 'Christianize the culture?" exactly what is it about the Gospel that is universal, to all people, all cultures, for all of history. versus those things necessary to structure the thought in order to teach and transmit those trans-cultural, universal notions.

The problem is that this feeds right into the liberal-conservative split in the church. it may very well be what the split is at heart about.

....

 

[California Tim]

If I could summarize one of your points, while the Scriptures may be written geocentrically (from a geocentric perspective), the Scriptures do not teach geocentrism.

The converting of the style of writing into a factual statement is where the danger lies.

I am not quite sure how to word this, so help me out if I seem a bit confusing. When you suggest that the Scriptures are written from a geocentric perspective, it implies that if the Holy Spirit was not implying geocentrism He is not effectively preserving His Word on paper due to the personal bias' of the authors. Stated another way, if you feel the Word is in fact geocentric, then one either assumes that the Holy Spirit intended to communicate that or the Bible is not inerrant due to the inability to exclude personal bias from the final copy. Your thoughts?

 

[Vance]

I am not quite sure how to word this, so help me out if I seem a bit confusing. When you suggest that the Scriptures are written from a geocentric perspective, it implies that if the Holy Spirit was not implying geocentrism He is not effectively preserving His Word on paper due to the personal bias' of the authors. Stated another way, if you feel the Word is in fact geocentric, then one either assumes that the Holy Spirit intended to communicate that or the Bible is not inerrant due to the inability to exclude personal bias from the final copy. Your thoughts?

Here is the way I see it (and, actually, a LOT of Christians see it).

The Bible is inerrant in the sense that it conveys it's intended message inerrantly. If the intended message is to provide historical information, it provides that information inerrantly. If God's intent is to convey theological truths, it conveys those inerrantly. If the writer inspired by God has an incorrect view of how the world works, and that is conveyed in the text, but that has nothing at all to do with the intended message, then why would God bother to insist that the writer convey it in a different manner?

The Bible does not teach geocentrism, but it is obvious that the writers inspired by God did believe the world was geocentric, and wrote from that perspective. And this makes perfect sense since the entire world, for a very long time, believed the earth was fixed and all revolved around it. Not just that this was what happened from their perspective, but that this is how things really worked. So, when the conveying of the message happened to involve a discussion of the cosmos, it was inevitable that the writer would convey the cosmos in the way the writer understood them to operate. Thus, to choose just one example, Joshua commands the Sun to stand still (not the earth to stop rotating), and "the sun stood still", which we know is not literally true historically since the sun is not the one moving, just what seemed to happen from the viewer's perspective. Yes, I believe this was a literal event (unlike many minimalists), btw. I believe the earth stopped rotating, a miracle of God, and the sun seemed to stop in the sky.

But, see, it makes no difference to the message. Why would God, at that point educate the writer regarding the heliocentric nature of the solar system and have him pass on that education along with this story? It is simply unimportant to the message of God's power over all of it such that He could bring about the miracle.

The same is true, I believe, for the geocentric language in Genesis 1. The earth is created before the rest of the heavenly bodies, which are created to serve earth, and provide it light. The entire universe is basically built around this earth, according to a literal reading. And it reads just like the writer believes the earth was flat (which any writer of the time would believe) although it doesn't say this directly, and describes the "firmament", which was also a common ancient belief, that there was a firm dome over the flat earth. So, this entire passage was also written from the perspective of someone who believe that the earth was the point around which all the other heavenly bodies revolved. God let the passage be written this way, for the reasons I set out a few posts above.

This in NO way makes the Scripture in error, since it never meant to convey a scientific presentation of the cosmos, but was meant to convey the greater, more essential truths about these cosmos. The WHO and the WHY rather than the WHEN and the HOW. This it does with complete inerrancy.

 

[California Tim]

Thus, to choose just one example, Joshua commands the Sun to stand still (not the earth to stop rotating), and "the sun stood still", which we know is not literally true historically since the sun is not the one moving, just what seemed to happen from the viewer's perspective.

Thank you for your detailed response. It appears our differences on the issue may not be so profound after all. I do wish to offer a slightly different perspective based on the above mentioned quote.

The fact that Joshua cammanded the sun to stand still, does not necessarily indicate he believed in geocentrism in and of itself. It appears you feel it does, but for example, even if today the earth stopped rotating and the Sun appeared not to move, a reasonable person would not necessarily jump to the conclusion the Earth stopped rotating until more facts were obtained. A good reason for this is that in addition to the Earth's rotation stopping, we could also have a simple reorientation of the direction of rotation that temporarily gives the illusion the Sun froze in place or that the Earth stopped rotating. It's a fanciful example perhaps, but the point is, even today, knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, I might be inclined to simply describe the event by the known fact - the Sun did not move. Until other facts are known, I cannot say "why" that phenomenon occurred or declare the Earth stopped rotating.

Likewise, Joshua need not know the method by which God would stop the movement of the Sun, so instead of giving a detailed instruction, he asked for a result and left the mechanism to be used up to God. It does not necessarily conclusively prove Joshua believed in geocentrism. Do you see the subtle difference?

 

[Vance]

Well, yes, but we know for sure that Joshua believed in geocentrism for one simple reason. EVERYONE believed in geocentrism. It was not even an issue back then, there was no other explanation going. It is certain that he believed the earth was flat for the same reason. Unless you want to assign to Joshua some great insight that no one else in the world had, and which no one had after him for thousands of years, I think there can be no doubt at all that Joshua, and all the other writers of the Scriptures (including Paul and the NT writers, btw), were geocentrists.

This does not in the least detract from the their value as vessels through which God presented His messages. These great men did not understand a great deal about the scientific aspects of the world around them. They had no idea how rainbows formed or where lightning came from, much less anything about photosynthesis. We have no reason to expect them to understand the proper relation of the sun to the earth, or think less of their ability to speak God's message for all that.

The message is the same: God can make it all happen. Even if Joshua had an incorrect idea about exactly HOW it happened, this is not important. Even if he (or the writer, if it was not Joshua) let that incorrect viewpoint impact how he wrote about the event still does not effect this message, this is not a problem.

The problem has come in when people get so tied to the wrong concept of inerrancy that they ask and expect more of the writers than God intended. When they tie inerrancy to complete scientific and historical accuracy, problems arise.

 

[MLML]

This is a fallacy of popularity. Because many believed in geocentrism, doesn't mean every person alive at the time and before hand also believed the same.

I am curious, do you have evidence that supports your statement that Paul and the other New Testament believed the earth is flat and the sun revolved around the earth? Evidence beyond your own assumptions based on popularity?

 

[Vance]

Well, I have a university degree in ancient history, if that counts for anything, and have studied the history of science in the ancient world. Yes, that was 20 years ago, but I have no doubt that if heliocentrism had become a going theory before the first century AD, such that an educated Jew from Tarsus would come to hear of it and accept it, I would have heard about it. It would have been an amazing, a truly amazing, thing if ANYONE in the general public (outside of some speculative philosophers, possibly) at that time held a heliocentric view of the solar system.

And why should this bother us if Paul, for example, didn't know which revolved around which? Do you think he also knew everything else we know about how things work? Photosynthesis? Relativity? The process of cell reproduction? Why would we expect Paul to know things about natural sciences that none of his contemporaries knew?

None of the writers of Scripture became omniscient because God used them as a vessel to convey His messages to us.

And the only fallacy of popularity could be the fallacy of beleiving something must be true because it is popular. It is entirely false to apply this to whether something was known by a particular person at a particular time. Unlike the idea of a popular belief being true, when determining whether a person at a given place and time likely believed a particular thing, it is entirely logical to base this on what people believed at the time and in what numbers. If there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone at the time believed in heliocentrism, it is very logical to conclude that it is almost assured that a given person at that place and time didn't believe in heliocentrism.

In the least, the burden would be on the person advocating that the person DID know about and believe in the concept.

 

[MLML]

I believe it is unimportant to know these things you have asked if Paul knew. What was and still is important Paul taught. Science is meaningless in the real scope of all things. Intelligence is meaningless in the real scope of all things. The only true thing that matters is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and the following of Him. Actions must be present for the faith to be real.

Science is fun to study and talk about but holds no real value for eternal life. Whether evolution happened or not doesn't really matter either. The core of the debates in this forum is really in how to read the Bible. What is at stake is whether we can choose how we read it, or if there is a way in which we must read it. By our own choosing we allow fallibility to enter the equation. By allowing the Holy Spirit to guide, fallibilty isn't an issue.

I would assume many will jump on me for saying such because humans enter the equation when reading. What we should try and understand is that when the Holy Spirit is guiding us, meaning we completely surrender, we don't do the reading or the teaching, God does. This might be a bit hard for many to understand, but submitting yourself to God is the key. That means realizing our own intellect is meaningless, that wisdom doesn't come from what we do but from what God gives us. Ultimately realizing that we are to live our lives by always doing what Glorifies God. Not sometimes, but all the times.

I suppose bickering on here back and forth, when neither side listens wouldn't be glorify God. I suppose my writing this was much more for me rather than you.
Thanks and God Bless.

 

[California Tim]

It would have been an amazing, a truly amazing, thing if ANYONE in the general public (outside of some speculative philosophers, possibly) at that time held a heliocentric view of the solar system.

This might get filed in the "For What It's Worth" category, but here are some rather interesting (coincidental?) facts aobout the Great Pyramid. I think they reveal a far more advanced culture and understanding of our solar system and planet than many would like to believe today:

• Aligned True North: The Great Pyramid is the most accurately aligned structure in existence and faces true north with only 3/60th of a degree of error. The position of the North Pole moves over time and the pyramid was exactly aligned at one time.

• The relationship between Pi (π ) and Phi (Φ ) is expressed in the fundamental proportions of the Great Pyramid.

• Equatorial Circumference of the Earth: The Pyramid embodies a scale ratio of 1/43200. The perimeter of the base * 43200 = 24,734.94 miles, which is within 170 miles of the equatorial circumference of the Earth.

• Radius of the Earth: The curvature designed into the faces of the pyramid exactly matches the radius of the Earth.

• Centre of Land Mass: The Great Pyramid is located almost at the centre of the land mass of the Earth. At one stage in it's history it may certainly have been. The east/west parallel that crosses the most land and the north/south meridian that crosses the most land intersect in two places on the Earth, one in the ocean and the other at the Great Pyramid.

• The Sun's Parallax: The size of the Earth as viewed from the Sun and expressed as an angle and generally taken to be 1/2 the diameter at the equator (Solar Equatorial Parallax) is 8.9008091 seconds of arc using 91848817 miles as the mean distance to the sun and 3963.4914 miles as the equatorial radius. The distance between the mean socket level and the height of the levelled bedrock is 8.9008 Pyramid Inches.

• Marks Spring Equinox: Due to the angle of the sides of the pyramid vs. it's latitude, it casts no shadow at noon during the spring equinox.

http://www.infinitetechnologies.co.za/articles/thegreatpyramid.html​

If they knew the circumference of the earth, the geographical center of the land masses of earth, the rotation and relationship to the seasons, the distance to the sun and who knows what else, maybe they weren't the bunch of geocentrist simpletons we've credited them for after all.

 

[Tenacious-D]

You have swallowed the usual Pyramid nonsense. All those numerological "facts" you have quoted are either stretches of reality or just flat out lies but people somehow really believe this stuff just because a few nuts (in the paperback book business) write this tripe down.

"most accurately aligned structure in existence" - are you being serious????

I believe the centre of land mass is in Eastern Turkey actually.

 

[California Tim]

You have swallowed the usual Pyramid nonsense. All those numerological "facts" you have quoted are either stretches of reality or just flat out lies but people somehow really believe this stuff just because a few nuts (in the paperback book business) write this tripe down.

"most accurately aligned structure in existence" - are you being serious????

I believe the centre of land mass is in Eastern Turkey actually.

Is it your contention that these early civilizations were a backward, illiterate and rudimentary people? I believe that is the essence of the debate here.

 

[Vance]

No, they had very detailed knowledge of some things, and remained very ignorant in others. The simple fact is that they did NOT hold a heliocentric view of the cosmos, we simply know that for a historical fact.

 

[Vance]

MLML, I agree that we should let the Spirit lead us in our interpretation of Scripture and I do just that. The problem remains that two people who both seek the guidance of the Spirit will still often come to different conclusions, and both feel completely at peace with that reading. Here is what I said elsewhere that is applicable:

Oh, no, one of us has that wrong [differing interpretations], that is for sure, and the Spirit would not lead us in different directions. And, I agree with you that God does not necessarily provide specific guidance regarding scientific issues. My point was that the Spirit can give guidance regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture, and will never lead one astray in this regard. And, the study of Genesis is, obviously, a Scriptural issue.

Now, let's think about this carefully. If God is allowing Twincrier to feel at peace with her literal interpretation of Scripture, and me to feel at peace with my non-literal interpretation of Scripture, what does that mean? I think that there can only be one conclusion:

The viewpoints that we hold in common about this subject are correct, and the viewpoints upon which we differ are of so little consequence to God that our having different viewpoints does not rise to the level of needing the Spirit's guidance.

So, what viewpoints do we have in common? The theological truths that arise from Genesis.

And what viewpoints do we differ on? Whether, in addition to the theological truths, the events described are literal history or not literal history, or some mix of the two.

Therefore, this tells me that God simply does not care what we believe about the literalness or historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, as long as we get the theological messages He intends for us from those passages.

And, therefore, we should not be making the literalness/historicity issue a dividing point for Christianity, and should not be teaching that it is an important, much less an essential aspect of doctrine.

 

[MLML]

I think that is wonderful that you don't use your own understanding in anyway when reading the Bible, but allow the Holy Spirit to be the only one teaching. I would then assume since you do this that you don't rely on anything that the world says to make its way in your understanding of the Bible.

I would then conclude that only one side - whether it is TE, YEC, GAP, OEC, or PC - has truly surrendered to God. God doesn't lead His children to come to completely different conclusions concerning Him. As Paul stated we are meant to go from one side to the other in our understanding of doctrine. The Bible, in its entirety, is doctrine.

I am not sure if you were intending to imply that somethings in the Bible aren't important, but everything in the Bible is important and relevant to the over all message.

I don't believe the Holy Spirit leads people into completely different conclusions. Someone is wrong and thats that. It can be me. What the debates here should be doing is making everyone go to their Bible, not their science book. Science doesn't save you, science doesn't do anything for you. Placing importance on it doesn't make much sense to me. It can be something to do and be interested in, but it isn't important nor does it speak of things that can give you eternal life.

If I am to be condemned because I have put my trust in God by believing the Bible is God's Word, then condemn me. Call me a Bible idolator because I follow the truths within the Bible and place more importance on them than the teachings of science or technology. I don't find the theory of gravity, or thermodynamics to be the ones who will save me on judgement day. I do believe the teachings within the Bible will lead me to the One who will save me, Jesus Christ.

As I have said, this isn't about evolution versus creationism, it is about intelligence versus faith. Intelligence is measured by man based upon what we know that is taught by man. Faith is measured by God based upon what we believe, which is taught by God.

 

[Vance]

No, you still are not getting it, and after so many attempts to explain it, I am not sure you will get it. If you can not see that we also put our trust in God and believe that the Bible is God's Word, then I am not sure how many times we can keep telling you that. You seem to think that someone who doesn't read it exactly as you do must not see it as God's Holy and inerrant Word. You are right, it is the teachings of the Bible that are important, not the culturally influenced package within which those messages are presented. Everything in the Bible is essential, meaning the message intended in every part of Scripture is important.

I don't think we can explain it any better, but you still are misinterpreting our viewpoint for some reason. Maybe after you hang out here a bit more you will see where we are coming from.