http://www.bible.org/journals/bibsac/bs122_f.htm
Copernicus, a contemporary of the Reformers, hesitated publishing (On
the Revolution of
the Heavenly Orbs) because he knew that many of his contemporaries
believed that the
Bible described the natural world in a geocentric fashion. He was
correct. Luther, for one,
commissioned the artist Lucas Cranach to do woodcuts that would
illustrate the text of
what became known as the Luther-Bibel of 1534.22 The drawing
illustrating the first
chapters of Genesis reveals a geocentric cosmology.23 The dominant
figure is God
overlooking creation. A small sun along with other planets circles the
much larger earth.
Adam and Eve speak to each other while the animals stand in the
foreground. Cranach and
undoubtedly Luther himself practiced a literalistic reading of the
text in Genesis. There is
little doubt that they believed the Bible provided authoritative and
accurate teaching
about the configuration of the natural world and its creation.24
As for Copernicus, he was anxious about a potential negative response
to his study which
advocated a heliocentric hypothesis:
Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely
ignorant of
mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass
judgment on
mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passage of
Scripture to
their purpose, will dare to find fault with my understanding
and censure it.25
Serious opposition did in fact greet the volume when it was published
posthumously in
1543. In Copernicus's native Poland, Roman Catholic authorities
evidently believed that
his volume overthrew biblical authority by challenging the current
interpretations that
the Bible taught a geocentric theory of the world.26 These Catholics
were not alone in this
judgment among 16th-century Europeans. Science historian Hugh Kearney
summarizes the
breadth of the opposition of the Copernican hypothesis in this fashion:
Does the Bible Teach Science? 201
The truth is that within the general range of religious
opinion, Catholic,
Lutheran and Calvinist alike, the Copernican view was
dismissed as an
absurdity. All the accepted authorities were against it. The
Bible
contradicted it expressly. The weight of common sense acted
as an additional
obstacle.27
Many Europeans believed that the scope of the Bible's infallibility
extended to teachings
about the natural world. They set in opposition their understanding of
an infallible Bible to
the viewpoints of natural philosophers and early modern scientists who
advocated a
heliocentric hypothesis.
Several of these early modern scientists like Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630) and Galileo
responded to these criticisms by arguing that they too upheld the
complete infallibility of
the Bible but understood the import of its accommodated language
better than their
detractors. The case of Kepler is especially instructive in this
regard. He was a Lutheran,
a mystic of sorts, and a major apologist for the Copernican
perspective.28 The majority of
contemporary Lutheran theologians were anti-Copernicans because they
believed the
Bible's teachings militated against the heliocentric hypothesis. In
fact Rosen remarks that
"Lutheran theologians in Kepler's time looked upon the Bible as a
textbook of astronomy . .
."29 In lengthy correspondence and in printed works Kepler tried to
persuade his critics
that the Copernican hypothesis was compatible with a belief in the
Bible's authority, if
one understood that on occasion a language of appearance is found in
Scripture.
Why is it surprising, then, that Scripture also talks the language of
human senses in
situations where the reality of things differs from the perception?
Piety prevents many
people from agreeing with Copernicus out of fear that the Holy Ghost
speaking in Scripture
will be branded as a liar if we say that the earth moves and the sun
stands still.30
Kepler also proposed that astronomy "discloses the causes of natural
phenomena and takes
within its purview the investigation of optical illusions,"31 whereas
"only in passing does
Scripture touch on the appearances of natural phenomena as they are
presented to [the
sense of] sight. . . ."32 Kepler argued, then, as had Calvin and
Augustine, that certain
passages of Scripture were written with the language of appearance. He
believed that
anti-Copernicans simply did not understand this. Kepler's apologetic
task was enormous,
as he himself noted: "The whole world is full of men who are ready to
throw all of
astronomy, if it sides with Copernicus, off the earth."33
202 Bibliotheca Sacra -- July-September 1985
Kepler's perspective on accommodation, as well as John Calvin's, is a
far cry from what a
number of commentators have said it was. Kepler did not read all the
Scripture's
statements about the natural world as those of a language of
appearance. Nor did Calvin or
Augustine. Moreover, the Bible is not errant in those portions which
encompass the
language of appearance. These sections are just as "truthful" as other
portions of
Scripture which speak of the natural world.
............... more at
http://www.bible.org/journals/bibsac/bs122_f.htm
Salutis
Eduard
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com