Re: [asa] a theological exercise

It¹s not just verses about the sun rising: Psalms speak of the Lord
establishing the earth that it might never be moved, and Joshua¹s ³long day²
specifically refers to the sun stopping, not the earth. Ecclesiastes also
states that the sun moves relative to the earth as it hastens back to the
place of its rising.

> Yet, maybe that reflects my own historical situatedness to some degree.

I would say so: this was no trivial discussion when it took place.

Here¹s Luther¹s take on the issue:

³People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth
revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever
wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is
of course the very best. This fool [or Œman¹] wishes to reverse the entire
science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded
the sun to stand still, and not the earth.² ‹ Martin Luther, Table Talk

And Calvin:

³Those who assert that Œthe earth moves and turns¹Š[are] motivated by Œa
spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;¹ possessed by the
devil, they aimed Œto pervert the order of nature.¹²­ John Calvin, from
sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in Bouwsma, William J., John
Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

(hat tip: Quotes from Gordon Glover¹s excellent blog, Beyond the Firmament)

I would suggest you see it as less threatening because you accept the
scientific evidence as conclusive, not because you¹ve ever gone looking in
Scripture for theological support for a moving earth. Try it out ­ you can
come away saying geocentrism isn¹t required of Scripture (i.e. explain away
all the texts that say the earth doesn¹t move) , but try find explicit
support for a moving earth. As far as I know it can¹t be done.

I¹m always a fan of examining arguments from their source (i.e. looking at
arguments that the adherents themselves put forward): try reading over the
arguments from the Association for Biblical Astronomy ­ they see no
difference at all between accepting a moving earth and evolution:

http://www.geocentricity.com/

On 6/3/08 2:15 PM, "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> But -- IMHO there is a significant difference between reinterpreting some
> scripture verses about the sun rising or about "days" of creation, and delving
> into the nature of sin and atonement. Whatever the result of theological
> reflection eventually ought to be, it just isn't fair to compare revisioning
> our understanding of humanity and the fall with revisioning the geocentric
> universe. Yet, maybe that reflects my own historical situatedness to some
> degree.
> It's also wise, I think, to consider the extent to which science can revision
> theology by looking at some of the directions process thought and panentheism
> have taken. Some of the articles in, say, Zygon, can't possibly be acceptable
> to Christian theology under any meaningful definition of "Christian." There
> is always some point at which the rubber band goes sproing, isn't there?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, skrogh. <panterragroup@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sometimes I find it amazing that Star Trek (TOS) addressed so many of
>> society's peculiarities, for lack of a better word.
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68790.html
>>
>> In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise reveals to an ancient society
>> that worship their Oracle, that for centuries, they have actually been
>> inhabitants of an asteroid-sized spaceship that is not guided by an Oracle,
>> but rather a super computer, that was programmed by an even more ancient
>> civilization, to flee the destruction of their solar system. Their entire
>> reality was blown wide open.
>>
>> To respond to the objection of altering one's theology to meet scientific
>> facts, I would say, "Why not, it has been done before and you engage in it,
>> as well. If you didn't, you would count yourself among the few holdouts for
>> Geocentrism." If they respond that the Bible no where teaches Geocentrism, I
>> would say, "well, we can say that now, and we pretty much have to, otherwise
>> the Bible would be in error."
>>
>> =========================================
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>>> Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:31 PM
>>> To: 'ASA list'; 'George Murphy'
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] a theological exercise
>>>
>>> My difficulty with your analogy of the scientist changing a theory in the
>>> face of new evidence, is that most of the evangelicals that I have talked to
>>> about this, claim that altering one's theology to meet scientific facts is
>>> not acceptable. To them, there would be no possible scientific evidence
>>> that would get them to reconsider. They understand the implications of
>>> evolution, the most difficult being those David O mentioned, and most are
>>> not at all interested in even trying to see if there is a consistent
>>> Christian theology because the only revelation that they are concerned about
>>> is biblical. In other words they will criticize because you have changed
>>> your views based on science, and the conversation stops there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue Jun 3 14:07 , "George Murphy" sent:
>>>
>>>> The first book we were assigned when I started seminary was a small volume
>>>> by Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. I'd like to
>>>> propose here what I think is an important little exercise for Christians,
>>>> young & old, who want to engage in theology-science discussions, &
>>>> especially those relating to evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Let me begin with a scientific preliminary. One of the tasks of a
>>>> scientist, & especially a theoreticians, is to try to see how well some new
>>>> discovery fits in with what he/she has up until that point regarded as the
>>>> best theory in the relevant field. E.g., are the data generated when a new
>>>> particle accelerator comes on line consistent with current theories of high
>>>> energy physics? If they are consistent without any tinkering with the
>>>> theory then they can be regarded as predictions of noverl facts by that
>>>> theory. Perhaps some relatively minor adjustments of secondary aspects of
>>>> the theory are required. Or maybe there's just no natural way in which the
>>>> new data can be understood within the theory's framework - in which case
>>>> all but diehards will decide that a new theoretical framework is needed.
>>>>
>>>> OK, assume now that somehow - & "how" is not something I want to debate now
>>>> - it has been demonstrated scientifically, beyond any reasonable doubt,
>>>> that present-day human beings have descended from pre-human ancestors
>>>> without any unexplained gaps - physical or mental - in the process. (Some
>>>> might claim that that's already been done but again that isn't the point
>>>> now.) The exercise is to see how well this could fit in with your theology
>>>> - with the way that you understand God, creation, sin, salvation and other
>>>> aspects of the faith. Does the evolutionary reality flow naturally from
>>>> your theology, does that theology require some modification in its
>>>> secondary aspects, or is there just no way to make human evolution part of
>>>> your theology without changing it (the theology) totally? A really serious
>>>> effort should be made to accomplish the task in some detail. It need not
>>>> produce a dissertation but has to be more elaborate than "Evolution is how
>>>> God creates" or "The Bible rules out evolution."
>>>>
>>>> & now the point of the exercise. Only a Christian has honestly tried to do
>>>> this - not necessarily succeeded but tried - has any business criticizing
>>>> the views of Christians who do accept human evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Shalom
>>>> George
>>>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>>> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 3 17:31:20 2008