RE: [asa] Flat Earth in earlier Christendom

Hi Dave,

                You stated: "Davis Young's book on John Calvin and the
natural world shows that the
                idea that the biblical text accommodates to scientific views
of the
                day is not new."

No doubt such teleological times would walk hand in hand with natural
theology, though the height of it may have been after Paley's book. [This
is an assumption on my part, admittedly. Is it a fair one?]

This idea, however, is being used against the Bible since, in the past, God
was used to explain the unexplainable. As science has advanced, so the
logic goes, God progressively recedes further and further from being an
active player (and thus, if at all). Newton, using my friend's example,
concluded that the planets would move into disarray due to the constant
gravitational nudges from the interacting planets, so, according to Newton,
God must intervene to tweak their orbital paths. A few decades later, along
came Laplace with his perturbation theory, and God was further removed from
involvement.

The inference seems to be much like the Einstein view of the aether, if it
is no longer needed then it probably doesn't exist. Of course, they are
looking at God as being "God the plumber" and are greatly missing what the
Bible is saying.

You said: "The Bible nowhere _teaches_ a flat earth. It uses the imagery of
a
flat earth, which is an accurate description of how the earth appears,
on various occasions (though what took place in a dream or vision is
hardly reasonable grounds for inferring actual geographic beliefs;
additionally, the vision in the temptation of "all" the kingdoms, etc.
need not be taken in an exhaustive sense, just as all sorts of evils,
not every last evil, has money at the root. Even on a flat earth with
little air pollution, one cannot see kingdoms all that far away no
matter how high up you are-it doesn't say "we hiked up Mt. Carmel and
saw Rome" but rather is a vision of some sort.)

Agreed, but the counter argument I will get is that "imagery" is a form of
teaching, and if the Bible is inerrant (yes, that word has arisen from him)
then it should teach a spherical body somewhere. I mentioned the verse
where God sits upon the circle of the Earth, and he said all maps prior to
Columbus showed the earth as circular and flat, but never spherical.

I considered burying him with allegorical verses, such as rivers clapping
their hands, to help him get past his literal testing, but, at this point,
it would be "too much squeeze for the juice"; he's not really that
interested in religious debate.

                You said: Of course, if nitpicky details justify throwing
out the Bible, then
                the ridiculous errors of inserting Paul and a garbled
citation of
                Daniel into Revelation justify throwing out everything he
says.

He corrected this gaff.

I think I can counter the flat earth view once I am better prepared, as well
as his other error claiming Bruno was burned for his astronomical views,
which are presented as being mostly correct views.

Thanks

Coope

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
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.