Ted wrote,
<< unlike Mortenson, I hold (with Calvin, Augustine, Silliman, and
Hitchcock) that the Bible is not a scientific text: as Calvin said
concerning Genesis, let him who would learn astronomy and other recondite
arts, go elsewhere. >>
Calvin is very clear on this. But, what are you looking at in Augustine that
makes you say he did not regard the Bible as a scientific text? In at least
one instance he seems to so regard it. Quoting from my recent paper on the
Tower of Babel,
As late as the end of the fourth century, Augustine, after raising the
question whether the stars were really very large but a long distance off or
whether they were really as small as they appeared, concluded that they were
as small as they appeared. In his commentary on Genesis, when he considered
the same question in the early fifth century, he continued to believe they
were as small as they appeared, and he cited Gen 1:16 as evidence that the
sun and moon really were larger than the stars, saying, "We do better when we
believe that these two luminaries are greater [in size] than the others,
since Holy Scripture says of them, And God made the two great lights."
Given the fact that people as late and as sophisticated as Augustine
understood Gen 1:16 literally, there can be no question that the original
hearers of Gen 1:16 understood the words literally. The verse cannot be
interpreted within its historical context as merely a reference to
appearances, but rather as a reference to conclusions drawn from the
appearances. To the original hearers, who believed the stars really were as
small as they appear, the sun and moon really were literally "the two great
lights." And if they had thought, as Augustine did, that this inspired
statement in Gen 1:16 reflected God's omniscient knowledge of astronomy, it
would have misled them, as it misled Augustine, into believing that God
thought the sun and moon really were larger in size than the stars.
Calvin's understanding of the fact that modern science is not being revealed
in Gen 1:16 is a significant advance on Augustine's understanding. And,
although Calvin's own limited knowledge prevented him from seeing that Gen
1:16 is not a reference merely to appearances but to conclusions drawn from
those appearances...
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 15:03:06 EST