Biblical interpretation vs evidence

[JerryL]

I've seen more than one person assert that science changes but that the Bible doesn't, and so believe what they hold the BIble to say (literal Genesis for example) over what science says.

How many of you are goecentricists? The Catholic church is, of course, famous for it's imprisonment of Gallileo and rejection of Compericus in favor of the Tychonian system; but we also get the following quotes:

This fool [Copernicus] 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.
—Martin Luther

Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?' Do not Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?
—John Calvin
​

So consensus amongs the most prominant of the Biblical scholars, both of orthidoxy (the Papacy) and the reformists, that the Bible clearly was against heliocentracism. (the Catholics were more accepting than the reformists actually till politics got involved).

So to the BIblical literalists. How can the founder of fundamentalism and all their followers have been so wrong, and yet you be so right... or are you geocentracist?

 

[JerryL]

No takers? Come on! Where are all the young-Earthers telling me about how scripture is unchanging and definately properly interpreted by them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So consensus amongs the most prominant of the Biblical scholars, both of orthidoxy (the Papacy) and the reformists, that the Bible clearly was against heliocentracism.

Most inerrancyistically leaning theists, along with a large number of English teachers, would claim that the Bible is not 'clearly against heliocentracism'. It's a silly post.

 

[JerryL]

The founders of the reformation (and the lead to modern fundamentalism) were clearly and strongly of the opinion that the Bible indiciated a geocentric universe, and that heliocentracism ran contrary to Biblical teachings. (I've quoted them, feel free to google their full quotes).

This is pretty much the same as those making the biblical argument against evolution... and asserting that the Bible should never be interpreted by comparisons with reality, but that reality should be interpreted through a raw reading of the BIble and what it clearly means. They go further to assert that God, through the holy spirit, let's them know how to read it.

So where was God for Martin Luther, source of the reformation and founder of the Lutherin church, and for John Calvin (I'm sure you are familiar with calvinism / arminianism).

 

[Fatmop]

Ok, JerryL, those guys 500 years ago had it wrong. They misinterpreted the Holy Book. But this time it's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! We know for a FACT that the Bible's position on a variety of things (evolution, abortion, etc.) is unchanging and must be true! Science is like Kerry - and we've all seen enough flip-flops out of him to know that he's wrong! All the time! Dead wrong!!!

Darwinists are all atheists and they're all evil. Enough said.

 

[Fatmop]

I guess that post might have been better satire-wise if I hadn't included the sig.

 

[michel]

No takers? Come on! Where are all the young-Earthers telling me about how scripture is unchanging and definately properly interpreted by them?

Here I am, Jerry; I'm a young-Earther. Scripture is unchanging. Do you have a question for me? Anything in the Bible I can spoon-feed you today? Can't find a Website to support our claims? I got a good one for ya: the 1611 Authorized King James Bible --- caveat accura.

 

[JerryL]

Here I am, Jerry; I'm a young-Earther. Scripture is unchanging. Do you have a question for me? Anything in the Bible I can spoon-feed you today? Can't find a Website to support our claims? I got a good one for ya: the 1611 Authorized King James Bible --- caveat accura.

I asked the question in post 1: Why aren't you a geocentricist? The Bible appears to assert that the sun moves around the Earth (certainly, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the early Catholic Church believed strongly it did). Why don't you believe the Bible there?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm a young-Earther.

So? Why should anyone respect willful ignorance predicated upon circular reasoning?

 

[michel]

I asked the question in post 1: Why aren't you a geocentricist? The Bible appears to assert that the sun moves around the Earth (certainly, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the early Catholic Church believed strongly it did). Why don't you believe the Bible there?

Because John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the early Catholic Church aren't the Bible.

How about you showing me which verse(s) you're taking out of context and let's talk like adults, okay?

You wanna slam the Bible? Not a problem. Let's just use Occam's Razor, okay?

 

[michel]

I guess that post might have been better satire-wise if I hadn't included the sig.

"Science is not against religion. It just happens to keep proving religion unlikely" - I think is actually factually incorrect, I think "Science is not against religion. It just happens to keep proving that those who insist on following the bible to the letter might consider themselves misguided".

 

[michel]

"Science is not against religion. It just happens to keep proving religion unlikely" - I think is actually factually incorrect, I think "Science is not against religion. It just happens to keep proving that those who insist on following the bible to the letter might consider themselves misguided".

Really?

Slientists once taught the Earth was flat. Christopher Columbus didn't think so based on Isaiah 40:22.

Bible: 1 --- Slience: 0

Slientists once said that there was no Hittite Empire --- even though the Bible said there was.

Bible: 2 --- Slience: 0

Slientists once said the Medes never existed --- even though the Bible said they did.

Bible:3 --- Slience: 0

 

[JerryL]

Because John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the early Catholic Church aren't the Bible.

But you are begging the question. Since Biblical interpretation is based on subjective reasoning; on what basis can you claim your position better than that of Calvin, Luther, and a score of Popes?

How about you showing me which verse(s) you're taking out of context and let's talk like adults, okay?

You don't know which verse Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and you are arguing on Biblical authority?

You wanna slam the Bible? Not a problem. Let's just use Occam's Razor, okay?

OK. Simplest solution that fits all teh fact? It's a book of mythology written by people.

 

[JerryL]

Slientists once taught the Earth was flat. Christopher Columbus didn't think so based on Isaiah 40:22.

Name the scientific study which concluded the Earth to be flat?

Theist scholars certainly did, including Calvin and Luther.

Slientists once said that there was no Hittite Empire --- even though the Bible said there was.

I presume you mean "antropologists did not, at one point, believe there was one". I've no idea, but no reason to presume that statement incorrect (other than your general tendancy to make incorrect statements). So what?

Now, if you've got a scientific study which proved there was not one, we could talk.

Slientists once said the Medes never existed --- even though the Bible said they did.

See above.

But you are falling from the subject pretty badly. I'm asking why you reject Geocentracism? Some of the most renown theologins in history not only believed in flat Earth (which is an uninteresting claim), but asserted strongly that the Bible clearly established geocentracism.

Are you claiming that Luther and Calvin are not as qualified as you to interprete the Bible? Can you clearly support their interpretation to be wrong (without resorting to science), or do you believe the sun orbits the Earth?

 

[michel]

The founders of the reformation (and the lead to modern fundamentalism) were clearly and strongly of the opinion that the Bible indiciated a geocentric universe, and that heliocentracism ran contrary to Biblical teachings. (I've quoted them, feel free to google their full quotes).

Well I can see this is going to take forever. Care to support this with evidence from the Bible?

 

[michel]

Really?

Slientists once taught the Earth was flat. Christopher Columbus didn't think so based on Isaiah 40:22.

Bible: 1 --- Slience: 0

Slientists once said that there was no Hittite Empire --- even though the Bible said there was.

Bible: 2 --- Slience: 0

Slientists once said the Medes never existed --- even though the Bible said they did.

Bible:3 --- Slience: 0

O.K I'll grant you Bible 1. - that is still not the point though, is it ?

 

[JerryL]

Well I can see this is going to take forever. Care to support this with evidence from the Bible?

"You don't know which verse Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and you are arguing on Biblical authority?" - post 13

 

[michel]

Name the scientific study which concluded the Earth to be flat?

No, you're not gonna pull me outside the Bible into slience. I'm too smart for that. You wanna bash Scripture, bash Scripture, but stay focused please.

 

[michel]

"You don't know which verse Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and you are arguing on Biblical authority?" - post 13

Okay, Jerry, you're ignorance of Scripture is just making this thread too long. I'm not gonna beg.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really?

Slientists once taught the Earth was flat. Christopher Columbus didn't think so based on Isaiah 40:22.

Bible: 1 --- Slience: 0

"Based on Isaiah"? Your source? On the contrary, Wikipedia notes ... ...

The widespread notion that Columbus encountered opposition based on the idea that the earth was flat is a literary myth created by Washington Irving. Educated people in Columbus's time agreed that the earth was round; anyone familiar with seafaring certainly knew it, since the roundness of the earth forms the basis of celestial navigation. The main debate was over whether a ship could circumnavigate the planet without running out of food or getting stuck in windless regions.

Doesn't you KJV say anything about fabricating evidence, or does this come under the category of 'pious fraud'?