Why the geocentrism analogy is useful

[Vance]

We TE’s often point to the geocentrism controversy in the 1500's as a parallel for the modern debate over creation and evolution. The idea being that, while the Bible does not teach geocentrism as a doctrine or even a scientific statement, it is definitely written from a geocentric perspective and uses geocentric language as a literary device. God either inspired this exact language or allowed his inerrant message to be written by authors (who were geocentrists themselves) in this way. The result was that when it was discovered that the solar system was NOT geocentric, there was much resistance and angst within Christianity. Galileo was condemned by both scientists (who were Christian) and by Christian leaders who insisted that such a heliocentric teaching was contrary to Scripture and, thus, MUST be incorrect science. While the scientists came “on board” with this new discovery fairly quickly (despite being Christian), many in the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, took a very long time to realize that it was not the science that was wrong, it was simply their interpretation of Scripture.

Now, many YEC’s hate this analogy with a passion, which is understandable. They say it’s entirely different because the Bible didn’t actually teach geocentrism, but it DOES teach a young earth and special creation! This, of course, begs the question of what the Bible teaches, but I wanted to set out why the analogy is an exact parallel. We will use modern geocentrists as the model (yes, there are still some around!).

Geocentism:

A. Geocentrists say that the Bible describes a geocentric solar system, and this must be read as scientifically accurate or you deny the validity of Scripture. So, heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture.

B. The rest of the Christian community (including non-geocentric YEC’s) says that this is not true. The Bible does use geocentric language, but only as a literary device, not to be read with strict literalism as a scientific presentation.

Creationism:

1. YEC’s say that the Bible describes a young earth and special creation, and this must be read as scientifically accurate or you deny the validity of Scripture. So, an old earth and evolution are contrary to Scripture.

2. The rest of the Christian community says that this is not true. The Bible does use “six day creation” language, but only as a literary device, not to be read with strict literalism as a historic/scientific presentation.

So, the positions can be set out:

Geocentists: both geocentrism and young earthism are presented as literal truth in Scripture.

YEC: the geocentric language in Scripture is a literary device, not a scientific statement, so that even though geocentrism is incorrect, the Bible is still completely true. But young earthism is literal truth in Scripture.

The rest of Christianity: both are literary devices, not historic/scientific statements, so that even though geocentrism and young earthism are incorrect, the Bible is still completely true.

So, the analogy is perfectly fitting. What we say about the YEC approach is simply what the YEC says about the geocentrist approach.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Another element to this argument is to visualize the right and left as types of rhetoric and to understand that the charges made towards each side are similiar.

image the time line, but with these positions instead of numbers.
to the far right is the flat earthers. moving to the left you have geocentrics, then YEC's then OEC, then TE then deists, finally to the far left is the a-theist position.

from one position to it's right wing, the argument is in the form of:
you don't study science and take the Scriptures too literally.
to the left wing, the argument is in the form of accommodationist, capitulation, compromise of Scripture.

It is as if you can take a small window and just slide it along the time line and see the same set of arguments played out, over and over, just the starting position changes.

This is why the YEC-geocentric argument bears study, it is the same as the TE-YEC, all that has changed is that YEC are a little further to the right than geocentrics having accepted the coperican revolution as not contrary to Scripture.

So the big question is what really is going on in the arguments? what are the big issues that are being mapped with this device?

What it is, is the relationship of science to theology, or using the two books metaphor, the relationship of reading the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Essentially the balance towards the right is to read Scripture without reading nature and to the left is reading nature without understanding Scripture, all the intermediate positions are mixtures.

And again the same rhetoric ensues, the atheist says that Scripture is unneccessary to interpret the book of nature and the flat earth says that the universe is lying and Scripture's obviously teaches a flat stationary earth, contrary to all scientific evidence.

The real argument is not if our reading of Scripture is to be influenced by the culture and science of our day, but exactly how we wish these influences to be entered into our hermeneutic. And not if Scripture forms a grid for our interpretation of the evidence of science but exactly how we build and use such a grid.

for these and other good reasons, i admire how vance has continued over the last few months to construct and elaborate this model for all our intellectual benefit. and i am still amazed that there exist YECists who just don't get it.....*grin*

...

 

[Vance]

Yes, I agree that the question should not be whether we should bring the conclusions from the study of nature into our hermeneutic, but HOW we should do so. To refuse to deal with this issue in a theologically correct manner, that is in a manner which maintains the truth of what God is telling us, is to open us up to many dangers.

 

[Maccie]

Vance, you put things so clearly and conscisely. I find it almost impossible to see how anyone can not see what you are saying and agree with it!

I await the replies of the YEC's with interest. If any do reply, that is!

 

[California Tim]

This is all well and good, but has no bearing on whether or not the Genesis account is literal. I get the impression you find the geocentrist debacle a compelling proof of the validity of judging scriptural truth as dependent on scientific discovery. Yet regardless of anyone's interpretation of a given passage of scripture, whether now or in the past, it has NO bearing on the proper intended interpretation. The truth of the text is verifiable within scripture itself, bringing all creation and thought in subjugation, refuting those who improperly apply or interpret its message. One thing is clear: IF the Bible had stated the world was flat and the universe revolved around it, then either it was just as the Bible stated regardless of what scientists claimed or the Bible would be unreliable. But, alas, no such text can be found and so this entire line of reasoning ultimately in support of a figurative or allegorical Genesis fails miserably.

The Bible never taught geocentrism and such belief was a result of IMPROPER interpretation, while ironically the Bible DOES teach a literal historical creation account and young earth, and belief to the contrary is the result of EQUALLY IMPROPER interpretation. If anything that is the lesson to be learned of the geocentrists - improper interpretation of God's word results in grossly distorted conclusions, only this time, it is secular science that is guilty of leading the charge with the full support of many Christians - just like the Christians who supported geocentrism of its day.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I get the impression you find the geocentrist debacle a compelling proof of the validity of judging scriptural truth as dependent on scientific discovery.

I find it compelling proof that a common sense reading of the Bible held to for millennia can be wrong.

I just find it odd to think that even though the faithful misunderstood scripture for over 2000 years you are incapable of doing so.

IF the Bible had stated the world was flat

It is only by imposing an allegorical reading on certain passages that you can state that it does not. Of course, unlike the language upon which geocentrism is based almost all the verses that support a flat earth are fairly poetic.

The Bible never taught geocentrism and such belief was a result of IMPROPER interpretation,

How in the world is the reading Joshua 10:12-13 as saying that the Sun is moving and the Earth is not improper interpretation?

Of course the difference between you and at least some of the Galileo's opponants is that they recognized that if they were wrong they would have to rethink their interpretation of scripture rather than throw away the facts. It never even occurred to them to throw away the Bible as you are proposing to do.

 

[Vance]

This is all well and good, but has no bearing on whether or not the Genesis account is literal. I get the impression you find the geocentrist debacle a compelling proof of the validity of judging scriptural truth as dependent on scientific discovery. Yet regardless of anyone's interpretation of a given passage of scripture, whether now or in the past, it has NO bearing on the proper intended interpretation. The truth of the text is verifiable within scripture itself, bringing all creation and thought in subjugation, refuting those who improperly apply or interpret its message. One thing is clear: IF the Bible had stated the world was flat and the universe revolved around it, then either it was just as the Bible stated regardless of what scientists claimed or the Bible would be unreliable. But, alas, no such text can be found and so this entire line of reasoning ultimately in support of a figurative or allegorical Genesis fails miserably.

The Bible never taught geocentrism and such belief was a result of IMPROPER interpretation, while ironically the Bible DOES teach a literal historical creation account and young earth, and belief to the contrary is the result of EQUALLY IMPROPER interpretation. If anything that is the lesson to be learned of the geocentrists - improper interpretation of God's word results in grossly distorted conclusions, only this time, it is secular science that is guilty of leading the charge with the full support of many Christians - just like the Christians who supported geocentrism of its day.

But Tim, this post entirely ignores the point being made. I agree completely that the Bible does not teach geocentrism, and I said so clearly in the OP. And I pointed out that claiming it DOES teach a young earth is begging the question. The question of what it does teach is for another thread. The point here is that, to the geocentrist, you are as much in error in your interpretation as a TE is. And to the TE, the YEC is as much in error as the geocentrist.

All you have done is show that my formulation of the positions is correct.

The point is that the geocentrist was AS CONVINCED as you are regarding what the Scripture was explicitly stating. And I feel AS CONVINCED that evolution is how God did creation as you are that heliocentrism is correct (which I assume you do).

Yes, anything the Bible teaches explicitly must be true. But the problem is that what is "explicit" is not always so to everyone. Geocentrism was pretty explicit to every reader in 1500, but only to a few now, including yourself. What is explicit regarding a young earth is explicit to you and other YEC's today, but not to many other Christians.

I agree that improper interpretation causes many, many problems, but of course I disagree with you over whose interpretation is improper. Ultimately the lesson to be learned from geocentrism is this:

Christians are very capable of interpreting Scripture incorrectly and of denying the evidence from God's Creation itself if it happens to contradict their interpretation. Further, it is sometimes necessary to abandon a traditional interpretation when the weight of the evidence from the natural world becomes great enough. Augustine agreed with this LONG before evolution came along.

Why should we allow scientific discoveries to inform our interpretation to some degree? What would have happened if the scientific discovery of heliocentrism would have been quashed and banned? Christians would have gone on interpreting all of those Scriptures incorrectly, as there was nothing within Scripture itself to correct it (so much for that idea)! And, as you say, improper interpretation can lead to many distortions.

Given enough time before the Second Coming, Christians will look back on YEC'ism the way we now look back on geocentrism.

 

[TwinCrier]

Strawmen don't put up a good fight do they Vance. To reword your last attack: One day Christians will look back on TE'ism the way we now look back on paganism. One day we will all know the bible was true all along. I pray that evolution doesn't destroy the faith of many others.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

One day we will all know the bible was true all along.

This being a Christians only forum I think everybody here realizes that the Bible is true.

I pray that evolution doesn't destroy the faith of many others.

[5]http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html relates a story of a
believer in YEC who had a crisis of faith when confronted with the
evidence for an old earth.

[6]http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm has links to a number
personal stories related to this. Three of the links follow:

[7]Why I left Young-earth Creationism--by Glenn Morton is perhaps the
best web page I have to demonstrate this point. Greg Morton gave his
testimony of accepting the "view that christians must believe in a
young-earth and global flood". He ended up in doing geology for an oil
company. The evidence for an ancient earth that he saw on a regular
basis nearly caused him to lose faith.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

[8]Steve Smith's Story is a related web page with the testimony of
person who was a YECist during high school and took geology his
sophomore year in College. He states that had his professor not been a
very devout Christian (the prof. openned every class with a prayer) he
would have lost his faith. As it was he had a very hard time of it.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm

[9]The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics is a
collection of responses to a question about this subject that was
posed on talk.origins.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whocares.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i've read literally hundreds of such testimonies.
the strongest one i have ever seen is at:
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2005/02/18/12027213.html#more

 

[Vance]

Robert, those are all good examples of the danger of YEC'ism when it is taught not as "one of the beliefs held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians regarding origins", but instead taught as an "either/or" proposition: if evolution is true, then without doubt Scripture is not true. Even more close to home, I put together a thread of probably a dozen people from the CandE forum who had either (1) faced a crisis of Faith due to YEC'ism and are still in the Body of Christ because they discovered YEC'ism was wrong, or (2) lost their faith due at least in part to the teachings of YEC'ism.

It was a very depressing, but enlightening, collection of testimonies.

BTW, Glenn is a poster here on these boards.

 

[California Tim]

Robert, those are all good examples of the danger of YEC'ism when it is taught not as "one of the beliefs held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians regarding origins", but instead taught as an "either/or" proposition: if evolution is true, then without doubt Scripture is not true. Even more close to home, I put together a thread of probably a dozen people from the CandE forum who had either (1) faced a crisis of Faith due to YEC'ism and are still in the Body of Christ because they discovered YEC'ism was wrong, or (2) lost their faith due at least in part to the teachings of YEC'ism.

It was a very depressing, but enlightening, collection of testimonies.

In case no one too the time to read through these, I would lke to post a couple of the examples by two different persons asked the same question demonstrating the folly- and insincerity of using a "literal Genesis" account as a basis for "rejecting" one's former faith:

1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your decision to leave Christianity?

It was one of two major reasons I left. As my awareness and understanding of science and the evidence became more sophisticated (I've always read many science books and magazines), the idea of a literal creation or flood myth, a la Genesis, became more and more ridiculous. The more I read Genesis, the more it seemed like myth to me. It simply doesn't mesh with what we know from the fossil record or the molecular evidence.

The other major reason I left was that I was one of the few Christians I knew who actually read the entire Bible, and I just couldn't stomach the vindictive, genocidal god portrayed in the Old Testament. If that god exists, then this universe is absolutely absurd. A god who is willing to wipe out entire portions of his creation and to infinitely punish finite sins sounds more like a devil to me. I'm an optimist, so I like to think the universe makes sense.

While I briefly considered a figurative interpretation of Genesis as a solution to my evidence-inspired doubts, it failed to address my second major concern with Christianity: the spitefulness of the OT god. I gradually concluded that Christianity, while it contains some uplifting and helpful elements, is, on the whole, a false belief system. I am now comfortably agnostic.​

1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your decision to leave Christianity?

Very. The main one. There were ancillary moral issues involved, such as the fate of those who had never heard the Gospel, and various bad behaviors of God in the Old Testament.​

I believe these words speak for themselves, that the truth of the matter is as follows: The person FIRST rejects the God of the Bible, THEN looks for the justification for that decision and hopes to find the alternative explanation for the existence of life outside the possibility of having been created. This misguided bias leads directly to the misinterpretation of the evidence which otherwise supports the literalness not only of the God of the Bible, but of the manner of creation as well.

In both of these cases, the idea of a literal Genesis account was not the primary motivating factor in "leaving Christianity" (a misnomer IMO - more likely it was a flat out "rejection" of Christianity from the start). Instead, both of these respondants revealed the true underlying motive - a fundamental rejection of the God depicted in the Bible.

If you think these were two isolated cases, read the rest of them here. Be alert for the true motive in nearly every response. You'll see these snippits in responding to the same question posed above:

"..the atrocities in the Old Testament, the atrocities of more recent Christians"

"So I would say that if anything this whole 'creation' thing has served only to drive a wedge between my own beliefs and religion. Certainly the crack no matter how beniegn was already there."

"IMO it is a reasonable assumption to assume gods non-existance on the premise that he is not needed, and on the observation that his supposed role diminishes as science advances.."

" Over time I came to the conclusion that God, if such an entity exists, doesn't involve itself in the small stuff of the Universe, and that any purpose that such and entity might have is intrinsically unknowable by man."

"I left Christianity before I knew much of anything about either evolution or creationism. The only real conflict that influenced me was between the claim of existence of God and the lack of evidence of the type of God claimed."

"logical inconsistencies, such as the all-loving God who tortures people for eternity,"​

Does anyone else see the consistency emerging here? The interpretation of Genesis, had a very neglible effect on the final decision to reject Christianity by these individuals. The question was very focused - designed to purposely link the two issues "Perceived problems with Genesis and Science", yet even in spite of this - the truth was revealed willingly by those who responded. In the vast majority of the cases, the true motive for rejection centered on the God portrayed throughout the Bible and/or on Christians themselves.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I agree that in most cases it is a whole host of things, not just this issue. But in many cases in the thread that I posted a while back, all culled from these very forums, the answer was that "but for" this issue, they would likely still be Christians. In fact, some expressed a renewed ability to consider Christianity now that they had been exposed to Theistic Evolution!

Many others said that when they had a crisis of faith due to YEC teaching, and were beginning to doubt Scripture and Christianity as a whole due to this, it was when the discovered the TE approach that their faith was restored and they are stronger now in their faith than ever.

But here is the main point: this SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AT ALL. It should not even be out there as a stumbling block for people because it is a non-salvation issue. There is no doubt that the creation/evolution problem has caused the loss of many, many souls to the Kingdom. The YEC's will say that it is because of the existence of the theory of evolution to begin with ("everything was going along just fine until then!"). We TE's say that the problem is not with the theory of evolution, but with the belief that the idea of evolutionary development is contrary to Scripture.

Let's face it, if there was no perceived conflict with Scripture, the idea of evolutionary development itself would not be a problem for Christianity at all. Yes, naturalistic philosophy in general, and a view of evolution based on that philosophy would still be a challenge to Christianity, but that challenge would be there with or without evolution. But it is the perceived conflict with Scripture that is the problem. Now, who is presenting the idea of the this conflict? The YEC's and the more militant atheists who see a way to attack Christianity.

We can not control what the atheists say, but we can control how we Christians present this subject. Why present the conflict as dogmatism when it is so dangerous and not a salvation issue? Why not explain that it is one of those things which Bible-believing Christians differ about, which has the added value of being TRUE! This can be done without watering down a particular YEC's own beliefs on the subject, but just making sure that all know that this is something devout and Bible-believing Christians differ on, and should not be something to either lose faith over or reject Christianity over.

What would be so hard about that?

 

[California Tim]

Vance,

It is not the responsibility of Christians to repackage the message of the Gospel or any other part of the Bible in such a way as to eliminate potential conflict with a world-view. I have demonstrated with the links provided the totality of the rejection of the GOD OF THE BIBLE. The excuses given mean little. The underlying principle is what is important and that principle has little to do with our personal differences on Genesis. Ask every non-Christian why they reject Christ and they'll usually reveal the true answer eventually, but initially will cover with a superfluous reason:

Ask an agnostic scientist: "because the Bible conflicts with science"
Ask a homosexual: "because the Bible opposes homosexuality
Ask a univeralist: "because the Bible is exclusionary"
Ask a pacivist: "because the God of the OT is vindictive"

I could go on. But the point is that the true motive is a simple rejection of the Holy Spirit, the God of the Old testament, and ultimately the claims of Christ. The initial excuses are fabricated to justify the rejection already present in the lives of these people. For the same reason I will not reinterpret the Bible's opposition to homosexuality in order to "win a homosexual convert", I would not be quick to offer a figurative Genesis as a means to pacify an agnostic over the creation issue in order to "win him over" either. Because the real reason is they reject God - period.

 

[Vance]

Tim, I disagree with this analysis completely. I have known and have spoken to people who were not looking for an excuse at all. They simply were confronted with a contradiction and could not resolve it in good conscience. Your approach is as much a cop-out on this issue as you are blaming the unbelievers of.

And, of course, we are not obligated change ANYTHING is Scripture. We must present Scripture as we see it. But we definitely ARE obligated not to put any stumbling-blocks in the way of non-believers or believers. And this issue is DEFINITELY a stumbling-block for many, many people. Thus, the presentation of this issue must be done with humility in our own interpretive abilities and realization that Bible-believing Christians differ. NOT to water -down the Scripture or make it palatable, but simply to avoid placing an UNECESSARY stumbling-block.

The Church can discuss this issue and present this issue without either diluting individual viewpoints OR creating a stumbling block. It is not that hard to do, but YEC's usually refuse to consider this approach.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. (1 Corinthians 9:20-24)

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.



only Christ and the cross are to be the issues, by making the age of the earth appear to be a salvation issue YECism is adding to the Gospel and driving people away unnecessarily. Just because YECism appears to be foolish to people doesnt make it Gods wisdom.

 

[Maccie]

Ask every non-Christian why they reject Christ

Apart from the USA where Christians seem to be paranoid about creation the above question would probably be "Who?"

Can you not get it into your head, C. Tim and all you others, that world-wide, you YEC's in the USA are considered to be a cult-like, tiny minority?

Christians across the world are spreading the Gospel of Salvation, not majoring on whether Genesis is a scientific treatise or not. And this is what you Americans should be doing, not causing uneccessary division, despair and a turning away from God.

 

[California Tim]

But we definitely ARE obligated not to put any stumbling-blocks in the way of non-believers or believers.

This subtle difference between what you imply the Bible says and what the Bible actually says is demonstrated in the following:

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (1 Peter 2:6-9)​

 

[California Tim]

Christians across the world are spreading the Gospel of Salvation, not majoring on whether Genesis is a scientific treatise or not. And this is what you Americans should be doing, not causing uneccessary division, despair and a turning away from God.

Are you under the impression that we go around handing out little Bible tracts stating that one must believe in the literal 6 day creation to be saved? We are here on a specific forum to discuss a specific issue of interest. If you find this offensive, perhaps you might be more comfortable in a forum not focused on the issue of origins. And as for the "minority" issue, you may rest assured, it has no bearing on whether or not Genesis may be properly interpreted correctly as a literal historical narrative.

 

[Vance]

No, I am referring to an entirely different verse. I was actually thinking of Romans 14:13.

Here is a good discussion of the matter from an OEC:

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word, many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.

Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read."

Found here:

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Foreword

I don't agree with all the conclusions of this book, but this introduction by Hugh Ross is very good.

In response to your response to Maccie, the problem is not at all in the discussion between ourselves of this matter. It is how Christianity is being portrayed to the non-believer and how we are raising our young people. These are the danger areas, and in those areas, YEC'ism IS being taught in the dangerous, dogmatic fashion. The fact that there are YEC "ministries" out there presenting this false dichotomy in a dogmatic fashion is undeniable. The stumbling block is there.