What would YOU do?

[United]

Yes, but regardless of point of reference. Do you think that the earth is fixed (not spinning on its axis) and that the sun and the stars literally revolve around it? This is what the geocentrists believe now, and what all Christianity believed in 1500.

Most of use here agree that the proper reading of those Scriptures is that God is using Man as the point of reference and to Man it looked as if the Sun stopped when it must have been that the earth actually stopped.

Unless you really are agreeing with the science of the modern geocentrist.

By the way, it is interesting to note that one of the leading Creationist organizations had a bit of a blow up a while back (it was either ICR or AiG) because they came out strong against geocentrism, saying that it was damaging to the message of Christianity since it was just bad science and undermined people's faith in Scripture (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, there were some strong supporters and members of that organization who were also strict literal geocentrists, and they got very upset and left the organization.

Hi Vance,

If it wasn't previously apparent, I think the geocentrists links are rubbish. My email simply pointed out that one could in fact take a full literal interpretation of the "sun standing still" verse and have a full scientific explanation.

Let's make a technical evaluation of the issue:

In your considerations, you are disregarding the frame of reference. To a physicist, the frame of reference is everything! You MUST choose a frame of reference before you can make ANY comments about one object moving relative to another. You cannot make a universal statement that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.

You are implicitly assuming a point of reference "fixed" in space. But what actually makes a "fixed" is the point? Is it the point where the big bang occurred? What if there are multiple universes? My point is that there is NO universally correct frame of reference. So what frame of reference should we choose when talking about the bible? If the bible is spirit breathed, we would expect that a loving God concerned for mankind would choose mans frame of reference. From earth, the sun (and the rest of the universe) does indeed revolve around the earth. Thus according to elementary physics and some logical deductions about God, we can fully substantiate a strict literal interpretation of Joshua 10:13 which says the "sun stood still".

Funnily enough, I fully agree with your general comments about science disproving a young earth. I am even open to reading some parts of Genesis as non-literal. But I do think you are on shaky ground when you use Joshua 10:13 to argue against the strictly literal YEC view.

 

[Vance]

No, I think you are missing my point. I completely agree with your analysis of that Scripture. What is important is that the geocentrists read it "straight" and in the plainest sense. They don't do the extra analysis you have done. You say that you can then go back and see how your approach is still a literal reading. But it is definitely not the plainest and simplest meaning, which is the standard propounded by so many YEC's. The plainest and most straightforward reading is shown by what people believed it to say before they knew the natural facts. This is that the sun stood still because it was moving. This is such a strong reading that even in spite of all the natural evidence, some still cling to it.

We are all aware of the facts about our solar system, and grew up with it, so to us we immediately, upon reading this verse, figure out what it must really mean. We automatically insert "perspective" to make it all fit. But that is ONLY because we have this scientific knowledge which we know is true.

There will come a point in time where Christianity accepts evolution and an old earth as easily as the earth revolving around the sun. At that time, all Christians will automatically read Genesis 1 and 2 in the way that works with that knowledge. It will be no more of a problem than how we read all the geocentrist verses. Sure, there will still be some holdouts, like the modern geocentrists, but that can't be avoided.

As for the geocentrist sites being "rubbish", I would agree, of course. But I don't think YEC's realize that their sites and materials are viewed with the same reaction. Exactly the same reaction, by everybody but other YEC's.

 

[United]

No, I think you are missing my point. I completely agree with your analysis of that Scripture. What is important is that the geocentrists read it "straight" and in the plainest sense. They don't do the extra analysis you have done. You say that you can then go back and see how your approach is still a literal reading. But it is definitely not the plainest and simplest meaning, which is the standard propounded by so many YEC's. The plainest and most straightforward reading is shown by what people believed it to say before they knew the natural facts. This is that the sun stood still because it was moving. This is such a strong reading that even in spite of all the natural evidence, some still cling to it.

Hi Vance,

I think we can both agree on the "plain literal reading" issue. One of the troubles with this approach is that it can still lead to different interpretations. For someone in the middle ages (and obviously the geocentralists) a plain literal reading could mean as you say. To someone with a little more knowledge, a plain reading means something different.

During my early years as a christian I was taught a literal view of Genesis - but never with the rigid YEC requirement for the "plainest reading". Many parts of the bible require anything but the "plainest reading". Why does the bible require the plainest reading of physical or historical descriptions, but not the plainest reading of spiritual matters? I can only conclude that YEC's are moving to an extreme position for the sake of protecting their literal interpretation arguement.

 

[Vance]

And with this last sentence I agree completely.