Raymond Sheen
Member
Original Post Has Been Edited by Raymond Sheen
I think that some of the perceived conflict with science and religion began with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who had a geocentric perspective on the universe. Inspired by the ancient Greeks Aristotle and Ptolemy. In fact Aristotle's geocentric concept would be the accepted philosophy even up to as late as the 16th century.
The scientist Thomas Aquinas had was greatly influenced by Aristotle and in his book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland insisted "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."
Galileo's heliocentric position didn't quite agree with Aquinas' geocentric position, and Galileo, in typical fashion, had the nerve to suggest that his own position was in line with Scripture. That didn't fly with them, who thought they had the sole authority for interpreting Scripture. The Church didn't have much to stand on really, as far as interpretation goes - they were wrong in assuming that because the Bible says the sun rises or sets or the earth was on an unshakable foundation as literally supporting their geocentric position. (Ecclesiastes 1:5 / Psalm 104:5) Of course we use those terms today and don't mean to imply a literal foundation or geocentric philosophy.
The inquisition of Galileo in 1633 didn't bring the church to it's senses. He would stand condemned by the Catholic Church until 1992 when they would finally admit their error. So it could be said that the position of the modern day science minded skeptic of the Bible isn't really any more informed regarding the issue. They, oddly enough, use the same tactics as the Church and juxtaposition the same sort of logic in doing so. The Earth is flat according to the Bible, they say, because it says "the four corners of the Earth" or "the foundation of the earth" when the Bible said the Earth was round or spherical thousands of years before science came to that conclusion. (Isaiah 40:22 / Job 26:7)
The Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah God. Inspired when dictated but not inspired in translation, so the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, it is the imperfect translation of it.
It isn't surprising that the Bible and science, the imperfect observations of man, do not always agree, but they do agree a great deal more than one might think. It is quicker to give examples of where they disagree than where they agree.
They disagree in the flood and evolution.
In addition to the aforementioned geocentric issue, It is often thought, incorrectly, that the Bible says the earth was flat, that bats were birds, that insects have four legs, that prenatal influence was real, that pi was slightly off and that the universe was created in 144 hours or six days. None of this is true.
I think that some of the perceived conflict with science and religion began with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who had a geocentric perspective on the universe. Inspired by the ancient Greeks Aristotle and Ptolemy. In fact Aristotle's geocentric concept would be the accepted philosophy even up to as late as the 16th century.
The scientist Thomas Aquinas had was greatly influenced by Aristotle and in his book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland insisted "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."
Galileo's heliocentric position didn't quite agree with Aquinas' geocentric position, and Galileo, in typical fashion, had the nerve to suggest that his own position was in line with Scripture. That didn't fly with them, who thought they had the sole authority for interpreting Scripture. The Church didn't have much to stand on really, as far as interpretation goes - they were wrong in assuming that because the Bible says the sun rises or sets or the earth was on an unshakable foundation as literally supporting their geocentric position. (Ecclesiastes 1:5 / Psalm 104:5) Of course we use those terms today and don't mean to imply a literal foundation or geocentric philosophy.
The inquisition of Galileo in 1633 didn't bring the church to it's senses. He would stand condemned by the Catholic Church until 1992 when they would finally admit their error. So it could be said that the position of the modern day science minded skeptic of the Bible isn't really any more informed regarding the issue. They, oddly enough, use the same tactics as the Church and juxtaposition the same sort of logic in doing so. The Earth is flat according to the Bible, they say, because it says "the four corners of the Earth" or "the foundation of the earth" when the Bible said the Earth was round or spherical thousands of years before science came to that conclusion. (Isaiah 40:22 / Job 26:7)
The Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah God. Inspired when dictated but not inspired in translation, so the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, it is the imperfect translation of it.
It isn't surprising that the Bible and science, the imperfect observations of man, do not always agree, but they do agree a great deal more than one might think. It is quicker to give examples of where they disagree than where they agree.
They disagree in the flood and evolution.
In addition to the aforementioned geocentric issue, It is often thought, incorrectly, that the Bible says the earth was flat, that bats were birds, that insects have four legs, that prenatal influence was real, that pi was slightly off and that the universe was created in 144 hours or six days. None of this is true.
Last edited:
