Re: geocentric

From: PHSEELY@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 13 2000 - 19:21:59 EDT

  • Next message: jeff witters: "proper v. process theology"

    Hi Gordon,

    You said

    << In modern physics motion is defined in such a way as to make the laws of
     physics expressible in very simple form. It doesn't seem to me to be sound
     exegesis of an OT passage to insist on this modern interpretation of the
     vocabulary used.
     
     Here is another example of the same point. In Daniel 3:19 we are told that
     Nebuchadnezzar ordered the furnace to be made seven times hotter than
     usual. Should we take a modern interpretation of these words and insist
     that its temperature was seven times as high in degrees Kelvin? It seems
     unlikely that this was the author's original intent since he probably had
     no concept of absolute zero.
    >>

    I agree with your point in Daniel, especially since "seven times hotter" is
    probably figurative for "as hot as possible." But, I do not understand your
    saying that my interpretation of the passages in Psalms and Eccl is a modern
    interpretation. In fact, I see my interpretation as resisting the temptation
    to modernize. In the ANE, as illustrated in Eccl 1:5, people believed that
    the sun literally moved around a stationary earth. The universe was not
    heliocentric, but geocentric. One would not be interpreting these passages in
    their historical context but rather in a modern context if the language is
    interpeted as anything less than literally geocentric.

    Paul S.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 13 2000 - 19:23:05 EDT