<< The wording of "what the Bible requires" is the issue. The teaching
> of
> Heliocentric verses Geocentric is not and never was a Bible issue.
> It is a
> result of men teaching as religion what they think science taught.
> Just as
> bad a men teaching what they think religion says as science. We must
> be
> very careful when doing either to make sure we are not teaching
> assumptions
> as facts. Science keeps changing as we delve into its mysteries, and
> every
> time I read through the Bible, I find a new thought.
>
>
IMO Ken overlooks one simple fact, that every verse in scripture involves
interpretation. The standard early understanding of Psalm 93:1 and 96:10
involves geocentrism. That it concurred with Aristotle's view does not
warrant Ken's claim.
Dave
>>
Dave has an important point here. When Luther, et. al. were finding
geocentrism in the Bible in the time of Copernicus, they were not
misinterpreting the Bible. That is, the original writer and readers
understood the fixedness of the (flat) earth and the revolution of the sun as
literally occurring events. The phrases "rising and setting of the sun" are
phenomenal language to us, but _not_ to the original writer and readers. In
fact, the Hebrew original never speaks of the "setting" of the sun (even
though they could have), it says the sun "enters" at the end of the day.
Enters what? Probably a gate in the firmament, where it goes out until it
comes back the next day---after traveling under the earth.
The use of "phenomenal language" in the Bible is largely an evangelical myth,
as is the idea that the belief in a solid firmament, geocentrism, and the
literal moving of the sun around the earth came from the Church accepting
Greek science. These concepts go back well before Greek science and are all
but universal amongst all pre-scientific peoples.
The reinterpretations of the above Psalms, Genesis, etc which evangelicals
now accept involves a rejection of the the historical-grammatical
interpretation of Scripture.
Rather than virtually rewriting the Bible to save its _assumed_scientific
inerrancy, it would be better to agree with Jesus that biblical inspiration
can encompass accomodation to cultural beliefs that do not have eternal
validity (MK 10:5). Also, IMO there is no sound biblical basis for the
assumption that God is either revealing or correcting the scientific concepts
of those whom he inspires to write Scrpture; so, any scientific "errors"
found in Scripture are not what God or Scripture is _teaching_ because there
was no divine commitment to reveal or correct the science of the time in the
first place.
Paul S.