Page 7 of 8

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:01 pm
by zoegirl
forum monk wrote:I think you're imagining that having some form of understanding of how something took place or happened would in and of itself negate God's Power, Majesty or Glory.

Think about that. I believe if I understood how God performed the virgin birth, healing the blind man, walked on water, etc, etc. Yes it would diminish the glory. If one knew how a magician performed a particular illusion (like David Blaine's street levitation) the impact of the illusion is negated. Even more so for miracles which are not mere illusions
I think this is a faulty analogy. This illusionist isn't really doing the things he/she is purporting to do. (although I am still fascinated by the processes of misdirection and still like the illusion). No matter how much we understand the creation, no matter how we learn to manipulate the creation, we are still not in control of creation. We still cannot be the master. (and those who think we can be, their thinking is still the result of sin).

If I suppose that God created aneraobic respiration for the bacteria and then developed aerobic processes by using the glycosis already existing and by causing mitochondria and chloroplasts to be engulfed in eukaroryotic cells, then the mystery and amazement is still there. The evolutionists may say that this is a random process. If we suppose that God did this, it does not remove anything of His power, majesty, or sovereignty. Good grief! To call forth and direct the events? yeah, I am still amazed.

Imagine Job being written today. WHile we can manipulate cells through genetic engineering, can you imagine God asking us...."Ah, can you call together the elements, create the bonds, call forth the DNA code (no, not asking can you manipulate the code already there, can you create you own?) Can you design a process to capture energy without cheating and borrowing mine? " We will always in the end say "I place my hand over my mouth"

Like a child imitating a builder by copying his design with legos, we pathetically manipulate God's creation (and sinfully declare our own majesty and glory)

His "genetic engineering" should neve be compared to our pathetic attempts. Somehow the God of the universe directing the chromosomes He made towards an end that He already knows (XY to XX) and fashioning the genes and genetic interactions, again towards an end that He already knows can never compare to our guesswork. It's not as if we are saying that God was looking down and said "Gee, I wonder what will happen if..." No, if God manipulated ADam's chromosomes in His side, then the manipulation was by God's intentional design, fully in control of His own creation.

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:46 pm
by Forum Monk
This illusionist isn't really doing the things he/she is purporting to do. (although I am still fascinated by the processes of misdirection and still like the illusion).
There is scriptural support for the idea, mankind is under a great delusion and is not seeing reality. Man would do well to remember there is a deceiving influence at work which lies and misdirects. The serpent which deceived Eve in the Garden is still active and he often disguises himself as an angel of light.
No matter how much we understand the creation, no matter how we learn to manipulate the creation, we are still not in control of creation. We still cannot be the master. (and those who think we can be, their thinking is still the result of sin).
We are commanded to take dominion of the earth and subdue it. There seems to be an implication it is to be an ongoing act and not necessarily a commandment we could fulfill in a short time.
If I suppose that God created aneraobic respiration for the bacteria and then developed aerobic processes by using the glycosis already existing and by causing mitochondria and chloroplasts to be engulfed in eukaroryotic cells, then the mystery and amazement is still there. The evolutionists may say that this is a random process. If we suppose that God did this, it does not remove anything of His power, majesty, or sovereignty. God grief! To call forth and direct the events? yeah, I am still amazed.
We don't know from scripture how God created bacteria as they are not mentioned, but we can see the general method God chose to create life. He formed it from the dust of the ground. So it seems reasonable to conclude He did not form life from existing life-forms.
Imagine Job being written today. WHile we can manipulate cells through genetic engineering, can you imagine God asking us...."Ah, can you call together the elements, create the bonds, call forth the DNA code (no, not asking can you manipulate the code already there, can you create you own?) Can you design a process to capture energy without cheating and borrowing mine? " We will always in the end say "I place my hand over my mouth"
I agree. When one pushes our understanding and abilities into the realm of creation one will fall hopelessly short.
His "genetic engineering" should neve be compared to our pathetic attempts. Somehow the God of the universe directing the chromosomes He made towards an end that He already knows (XY to XX) and fashioning the genes and genetic interactions, again towards an end that He already knows can never compare to our guesswork. It's not as if we are saying that God was looking down and said "Gee, I wonder what will happen if..." No, if God manipulated ADam's chromosomes in His side, then the manipulation was by God's intentional design, fully in control of His own creation.
Strangely this seems to be only example of life from life in the creation account. This again was done with distinct purpose. Not as a pattern for creation rather a very unique and special recognition that it is not good that a man should be alone and a "man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh".

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:56 pm
by zoegirl
forum monk wrote:We are commanded to take dominion of the earth and subdue it. There seems to be an implication it is to be an ongoing act and not necessarily a commandment we could fulfill in a short time.
you misunstood my context. YOu say that when we "demystify" the creation we somehow take away from the mystery and grandeur and uniqueness of the creation, making it less of a miracle. My point was not about being stewards but rather that, as stewards, we are never able to match God's command over His creation. We may be able to mess around and manipulate but we cannot command from our will like God can. As such, any explanantion as to how God created can never elevate us to His position, even if can imitate on some puny level HIs processes.

it's not as if we can call upon atoms and elements to create our own type of genetic code (and any manufacturing of such code would simply be using His creation anyway).

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:33 pm
by sandy_mcd
Canuckster1127 wrote:Does that help or am I confusing the matter more?
Yes. And yes. :?
Canuckster1127 wrote:The use of the word "yom" in the Hebrew can be understood as the daylight portion of a solar day, an entire 24 hour day or it can be used figuratively as a period of defined time, but not specifically measured.
In English I certainly agree. For "yom" I will accept your statement.
Canuckster1127 wrote:It appears to me that the context of the text doesn't demand such a definition of day,
Agreed.
Canuckster1127 wrote:It requires a presumption of God's time table to an arbtrary standard which is tied to an arbitrary perspective tied to the time of the writing of the account rather than the event itself.
I think that is true for any of the days of Creation. Why should the fifth day, e.g., be a day in length?
Canuckster1127 wrote:It may be a legitimate explanation to state that because Genesis was written after the establishment of a solar day that it should be understood in that context.
That is my perspective. It seems only logical to use units known at the time of writing. Many (most?) archaeological papers of today presumably use modern units rather than the contemporary units (many of which are poorly known and/or poorly defined). So if one accepts that days (or hours or minutes) are acceptable time units since they will be recognized by the reader, then the only oddity is that that each period is given as an even 1 day. But that again applies to all the days of Creation.
I do not believe in fixed 24 hour periods, but I also don't feel that the usage of that term is prohibited by the non-existence of the generating system. It's a minor quibble, but I am just curious about why others come to different conclusions. Canuckster's opinions in general are close enough to mind that I can see how he reaches conclusions, even if they are not the same ones I reach.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:52 am
by Forum Monk
sandy_mcd wrote:That is my perspective.
sandy_mcd, your perspective is a rote endorement sans exegesis. Can you support your view from scriptural context?
sandy_mcd wrote:It seems only logical to use units known at the time of writing. Many (most?) archaeological papers of today presumably use modern units rather than the contemporary units (many of which are poorly known and/or poorly defined).
One should not assume the ancient people were primitive in their abilities to understand time. Nearly every culture understood days, months and years and they had counting systems. Sumerians texts which predate the bible have a numbering system into the thousands so it very likely they understood the concept of thousands. For those indefinite periods of time which imply uncountable years, for example, appropriate words or modifiers existed which allow them to meaningfully convey the idea.

The hebrews for example, certainly understood days, months years and could count. They had no problem expressing and understanding the ages given in the genealogies. They knew and could count the number of years given between Adam and Noah for example. Often they were very specific about the lengths of time and when they want to generalize something as old or ancient (i.e. thousands of years) they had other words which conveyed the meaning.

As for archaeologists using modern measuring systems, it is undoubtably a convenience when reporting the physical parameters of a find, but in translating written texts, I don't see this occurring. Again a good example is the bible or egyptian texts in which the cubit is used as a unit of meaure and weights are expressed in the ancient units even if today we do not understand exactly how much was being conveyed.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:29 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
String "theory" hopes to unify the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

It may be that all the beauty and complexity of the universe is the result of a few intertwined physical laws and constants.

It may be just me but I find the idea of God conceiving the entirety of creation in an instant, much more impressive than the idea of a diety molding forms out of dust like an artist molding clay.

Imagine if you will someone who could take nothing and toss it upwards. And because of the properties in the nothingness, it turns into a multicolored sheet of paper.
A glint of light forms above.
The sun begins to rise.
The clouds part the morning sky a dazzling array of hues.
As we watch in awe
the pied paper enfolds into a beautiful crane.
Our jaws drop in disbelief,
this crane spreads it's wings on the sandy beach,
takes lift and hovers in the salty breeze.
Then flies away over the deep blue ocean
springing underneath in a symphony of creation.
The majestic bird dissapears into the distance.
Afternoon approaches.

All because of the properties imbued into the nothingness which we can never ever recreate, as we are also the products of this truly creative process.

Now that is awesome, and it is a display of unimaginable power and majesty.

So in short, Forum Monk, I very strongly disagree with your analysis.
Your vision is simply that of a bigger person molding and manipulating things just as we do. That is far too mundane a vision of the creator.

p.s. before people start asking if suddenly I believe in ID. The answer is no, ID is not a science. I believe that id(intelligent design) is a strong possibility, this is NOT ID (Intelligent Design and it's movement).

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:34 am
by zoegirl
Forum monk doens't believe that, I am willing to suppose that God did it through stages (which really, your example is just a process as well)

Re:

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:36 am
by Forum Monk
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So in short, Forum Monk, I very strongly disagree with your analysis.
Your vision is simply that of a bigger person molding and manipulating things just as we do. That is far too mundane a vision of the creator.
That's a beautiful image, BeGood... and I can visualize it. I don't know if my image of God creating is as "mundane" as you suggest, but imagine how impressive and exciting it would have been, had Jesus blessed the loaves and fishes and a great glowing light radiated upward from the basket and loaves and fish suddenly began to spill over the edge. That would have been beautiful to witness.

Some people will believe anything about origins as long as it has a scientific "ring" to it. I think it behooves all to remember, that modern science is the discovery of creation after the fact. It is not an explanation for "how" and "why" it was done. Everyone seems to think I loathe science and nothing can be further from the truth. I am very fascinated by things like quantum mechanics and believe we will soon see big breakthroughs in quantum computing. That is awesome application of the discoveries we are making. The huge advances we have in medicine are the result of systematic scientific discovery and experimentation. Thank God He is allowing us to discover these things to the advantage of life.

I simply think, the things that happened that first day in Genesis and each of the following five days are in a realm unique to God. We are incapable of discovering them...by design. It is so far beyond what we could ever hope to find and understand it is futile to try, and why should we? We can spend multiple lifetimes trying to understand the results of creation. This is general revelation. God spoke and matter/energy, physics, nature, everything we perceive, came from nothing. This is special revelation...and it remains beyond what eyes of flesh could ever hope to perceive.

Everyone on this board (I hope) agrees that God is capable of doing anything. Let's leave it go at that. He did and the Word confirms it. Now go and discover what He did. But lets us not in our arrogance, because we think we have some measure of knowledge, try to claim we know how He did it. Our confidence in our knowledge is unfounded. The scripture clearly says: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Cor 2:9), so even one day if we devise the grand unification theory, we still have not conceived the depths of creation.

Understand, when we discover something and say, "we are closer to understanding how God did such and such"...No...You are only closer to understanding what He accomplished. Its like peering into the Mandelbrot set. The deeper you go the more it unfolds, for as long as you have the will and the means to discover.

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:30 am
by Canuckster1127
Forum Monk,

What's your opinion about the whole geocentric solar system?

I'm not trying to tweak you on this, I'm sincerely interested.

I've seen you argue that you believe long periods of time should be discounted because the original audience either lacked the ability to understand or they did not see that message to that extent (although many certainly saw them as more than 24 hour days).

Isn't that what happened with the Copernican Solar system? Isn't that a remarkably similar scenario where Church leaders held to the ptolemaic or geocentric model because it was clear to them that the language of Scripture demanded that the sun orbit the earth?

What happened in the aftermath? Wasn't there a huge fallout among society where the Church was discredited, scripture diminished in their eyes and the Church viewed as anti-intellectual?

Was there a perspectival hermeutic present in the Church and Biblical Scholars prior to this event? How could a new hermeneutic be introduced 1500 years after the completion of Scripture? Wouldn't that fly in the face of what you're saying in terms of the scope of original understanding (at least in the realm of science) limiting how Scripture should be understood in matters of simple scientific truth?

What happened in this instance? Do you see any parallels present here? What difference does it make if the majority of Church history the majority of Church Fathers (or if you won't accept that, that at least a strong minority) saw creation days as a 1,000 years and it wasn't until the modern scientific era that the true extent of time involved was discovered?

When that which is hidden becomes revealed or at least another stage of discovery is progressed into, does that mean God's integrity needs to be defended by the Church to try and preserve the old understanding on an issue of science which in the broader scope of things is a remarkably minor concern of Scripture?

I'm a huge fan of preserving embracing and accepting mystery and ambiguity in matters of Scriptural truth. The most important elements of Scriptural truth never will be reduced to pure logic. The Trinity, the reconciliation of Christ's being Fully God and Fully Human, etc will never be understood to a materialistic mind.

I dont feel any need however to attempt to protect God or Scripture from the "truth" where science operates in its proper realm in dealing with the physical universe on a matter such as age. Especially when solid Church History and Biblical exegesis has allowed for and even promoted that understanding. Further, we have a very clear example of what can happen when the Church attempts to discount truth on the basis of faulty exegesis and I'm very sure that despite the fact that the Bible and Christ promise we will look foolish to the world, that that is not sufficient reason to seek to promote ourselves as fools as a goal.

Just because the idea of millions or billions of years was not intuitively grasped by those reading the original text, is not reason to accept that once you see 24 hour days are not demanded, you're simply arguing degrees which is meaningless exegetically.

Sorry to preach. I am interested though what your thoughts are on the geocentric fiasco in the past and how you reconcile that with some of what you're advocating now.

Blessings,

Bart

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:03 am
by Forum Monk
Are you aware that the church which persecuted Galileo, has never said it was wrong nor has it retracted its position? (at least according to all accounts which I have read)

I will respond more fully, later when I have time.

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:34 am
by Canuckster1127
I'm aware that it is more complicated than the simple scenario I've presented.

Heres' some links to where Pope John Paul II did apologize for sins of the Church including the Galileo Trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 47,00.html

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/galileo.htm

If you've never seen this it's worth taking the time to read as well. This is Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess in which he gives his views on science and scripture.

http://www.galilean-library.org/christina.html

To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:

Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction.

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

These men would perhaps not have fallen into such error had they but paid attention to a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statements about things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Speaking of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old or the New Testament."

Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply and dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies and seek new ways to damage me.

I should pay no more attention to them than to those who previously contradicted me - at whom I always laugh, being assured of the eventual outcome - were it not that in their new calumnies and persecutions I perceive that they do not stop at proving themselves more learned than I am (a claim which I scarcely contest), but go so far as to cast against me the imputations of crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than death itself. I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice of this is recognized by those who are acquainted with these men and with me, as perhaps it is not known to others.

Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way. In addition there are astronomical arguments derived from many things in my new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis. Possibly because they are disturbed by the known truth of other propositions of mine which differ from those commonly held, and therefore mistrusting their defense so long as they confine themselves to the field of philosophy, these men have resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible. These they apply with little judgement to the refutation of arguments that they do not understand and have not even listened to.

First they have endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical. They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly, rather than those from which a man may receive some just encouragement. Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted confidence, thus doing impious and inconsiderate injury not only to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics and mathematicians in general. Next, becoming bolder, and hoping (though vainly) that this seed which first took root in their hypocritical minds would send out branches and ascend to heaven, they began scattering rumors among the people that before long this doctrine would be condemned by the supreme authority. They know, too, that official condemnation would not only sup press the two propositions which I have mentioned, but would render damnable all other astronomical and physical statements and observations that have any necessary relation or connection with these.

In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible (at least among the common people) to make this opinion seem new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform. At that time the calendar was defective because the true measures of the year and the lunar month were not exactly known. The Bishop of Culm, then superintendent of this matter, assigned Copernicus to seek more light and greater certainty concerning the celestial motions by means of constant study and labor. With Herculean toil he set his admirable mind to this task, and he made such great progress in this science and brought our knowledge of the heavenly motions to such precision that he became celebrated as an astronomer. Since that time not only has the calendar been regulated by his teachings, but tables of all the motions of the planets have been calculated as well.

Having reduced his system into six books, he published these at the insistence of the Cardinal of Capua and the Bishop of Culm. And since he had assumed his laborious enterprise by order of the supreme pontiff, he dedicated this book On the celestial revolutions to Pope Paul III. When printed, the book was accepted by the holy Church, and it has been read and studied by everyone without the faintest hint of any objection ever being conceived against its doctrines. Yet now that manifest experiences and necessary proofs have shown them to be well grounded, persons exist who would strip the author of his reward without so much as looking at his book, and add the shame of having him pronounced a heretic. All this they would do merely to satisfy their personal displeasure conceived without any cause against another man, who has no interest in Copernicus beyond approving his teachings.

Now as to the false aspersions which they so unjustly seek to cast upon me, I have thought it necessary to justify myself in the eyes of all men, whose judgment in matters of` religion and of reputation I must hold in great esteem. I shall therefore discourse of the particulars which these men produce to make this opinion detested and to have it condemned not merely as false but as heretical. To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even m purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.

I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they do, when I argue not against condemning this book, but against condemning it in the way they suggest-that is, without under standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it. For Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood and thus at the end of his letter of dedication. Addressing the pope, he said:

If there should chance to be any exegetes ignorant of mathematics who pretend to skill in that discipline, and dare to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the authority of some scriptural passage twisted to their purpose, I value them not, but disdain their unconsidered judgment. For it is known that Lactantius - a poor mathematician though in other respects a worthy author - writes very childishly about the shape of the earth when he scoffs at those who affirm it to be a globe. Hence it should not seem strange to the ingenious if people of that sort should in turn deride me. But mathematics is written for mathematicians, by whom, if I am not deceived, these labors of mine will be recognized as contributing something to their domain, as also to that of the Church over which Your Holiness now reigns.
Such are the people who labor to persuade us that an author like Copernicus may be condemned without being read, and who produce various authorities from the Bible, from theologians, and from Church Councils to make us believe that this is not only lawful but commendable. Since I hold these to be of supreme authority I consider it rank temerity for anyone to contradict them-when employed according to the usage of the holy Church. Yet I do not believe it is wrong to speak out when there is reason to suspect that other men wish, for some personal motive, to produce and employ such authorities for purposes quite different from the sacred intention of the holy Church.

Therefore I declare (and my sincerity will make itself manifest) not only that I mean to submit myself freely and renounce any errors into which I may fall in this discourse through ignorance of matters pertaining to religion, but that I do not desire in these matters to engage in disputes with anyone, even on points that are disputable. My goal is this alone; that if, among errors that may abound in these considerations of a subject remote from my profession, there is anything that may be serviceable to the holy Church in making a decision concerning the Copernican system, it may be taken and utilized as seems best to the superiors. And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic. And though many of the things I shall reprove have been heard by my own ears, I shall freely grant to those who have spoken them that they never said them, if that is what they wish, and I shall confess myself to have been mistaken. Hence let whatever I reply be addressed not to them, but to whoever may have held such opinions.

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense­ experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense­experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words:

We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.
From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.

Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them. Such is the opinion of the holiest and most learned Fathers, and in St. Augustine we find the following words:

It is likewise commonly asked what we may believe about the form and shape of the heavens according to the Scriptures, for many contend much about these matters. But with superior prudence our authors have forborne to speak of this, as in no way furthering the student with respect to a blessed life-and, more important still, as taking up much of that time which should be spent in holy exercises. What is it to me whether heaven, like a sphere surrounds the earth on all sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe, or whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the earth? Belief in Scripture is urged rather for the reason we have often mentioned; that is, in order that no one, through ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in our Bibles or hearing anything cited from them of such a nature as may seem to oppose manifest conclusions, should be induced to suspect their truth when they teach, relate, and deliver more profitable matters. Hence let it be said briefly, touching the form of heaven, that our authors knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful to no one for salvation.
The same disregard of these sacred authors toward beliefs about the phenomena of the celestial bodies is repeated to us by St. Augustine in his next chapter. On the question whether we are to believe that the heaven moves or stands still, he writes thus:

Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so; but to undertake this and discuss it is consistent neither with my leisure nor with the duty of those whom I desire to instruct in essential matters more directly conducing to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church.
From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."

But let us again consider the degree to which necessary demonstrations and sense experiences ought to be respected in physical conclusions, and the authority they have enjoyed at the hands of holy and learned theologians. From among a hundred attestations I have selected the following:

We must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses. that we altogether avoid saying positively and confidently anything which contradicts manifest experiences and the reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of human knowledge.
And in St. Augustine we read:

If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.
This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us. Now the Bible, as has been remarked, admits in many places expositions that are remote from the signification of the words for reasons we have already given. Moreover, we are unable to affirm that all interpreters of the Bible speak by Divine inspiration for if that were so there would exist no differences among them about the sense of a given passage. Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary. Who indeed will set bounds to human ingenuity? Who will assert that everything in the universe capable of being perceived is already discovered and known? Let us rather confess quite truly that "Those truths which we know are very few in comparison with those which we do not know."

We have it from the very mouth of the Holy Ghost that God delivered up the world to disputations, so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end. In my opinion no one, in contradiction to that dictum, should close the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not to be satisfied with those opinions which have become common. No one should be scorned in physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which happen to please other people best, especially concerning problems which have been debated among the greatest philosophers for thousands of years. One of these is the stability of the sun mobility of the earth, a doctrine believed by Pythagoras and all his followers, by Heracleides of Pontus (who was one of them), by Philolaus, the teacher of Plato, and by Plato himself according to Aristotle. Plutarch writes in his Life of Numa that Plato, when he had grown old, said it was absurd to believe otherwise. The same doctrine was held by Aristarchus of Samos, as Archimedes tells us; by Seleucus the mathematician, by Nicetas the philosopher (on the testimony of Cicero), and by many others. Finally this opinion has been amplified and confirmed with many observations and demonstrations by Nicholas Copernicus. And Seneca, a most eminent philosopher, advises us in his book on comets that we should more diligently seek to ascertain whether it is in the sky or in the earth that the diurnal rotation resides.

Hence it would probably be wise and useful counsel if, beyond articles which concern salvation and the establishment of our Faith, against the stability of which there is no danger whatever that any valid and effective doctrine can ever arise, men would not aggregate further articles unnecessarily. And it would certainly be preposterous to introduce them at the request of persons, who, besides not being known to speak by inspiration of divine grace, are clearly seen to lack that understanding which is necessary in order to comprehend, let alone discuss, the demonstrations by which such conclusions are supported in the subtler sciences. If I may speak my opinion freely, I should say further that it would perhaps fit in better with the decorum and majesty of the sacred writings to take measures for preventing every shallow and vulgar writer from giving to his compositions (often grounded upon foolish fancies) an air of authority by inserting in them passages from the Bible, interpreted (or rather distorted) into senses as far from the right meaning of Scripture as those authors are near to absurdity who thus ostentatiously adorn their writings. Of such abuses many examples might be produced, but for the present I shall confine myself to two which are germane to these astronomical matters. The first concerns those writings which were published against the existence of the Medicean planets recently discovered by me, in which many passages of holy Scripture were cited. Now that everyone has seen these planets, I should like to know what new interpretations those same antagonists employ in expounding the Scripture and excusing their own simplicity. My other example is that of a man who has lately published, in defiance of astronomers and philosophers, the opinion that the moon does not receive its light from the sun but is brilliant by its own nature. He supports this fancy (or rather thinks he does) by sundry texts of Scripture which he believes cannot be explained unless his theory is true; yet that the moon is inherently dark is surely as plain as daylight.

It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true senses of Scripture, would impose upon others an obligation to subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to manifest reason and sense, if they had any authority to do so. God forbid that this sort of abuse should gain countenance and authority, for then in a short time it would be necessary to proscribe all the contemplative sciences. People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them. The former, glancing superficially through the Bible, would arrogate to themselves the authority to decree upon every question of physics on the strength of some word which they have misunderstood, and which was employed by the sacred authors for some different purpose. And the smaller number of understanding men could not dam up the furious torrent of such people, who would gain the majority of followers simply because it is much more pleasant to gain a reputation for wisdom without effort or study than to consume oneself tirelessly in the most laborious disciplines. Let us therefore render thanks to Almighty God, who in His beneficence protects us from this danger by depriving such persons of all authority, reposing the power of consultation, decision, and decree on such important matters in the high wisdom and benevolence of most prudent Fathers, and in the supreme authority of those who cannot fail to order matters properly under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Hence we need not concern ourselves with the shallowness of those men whom grave and holy authors rightly reproach, and of whom in particular St. Jerome said, in reference to the Bible:

This is ventured upon, lacerated, and taught by the garrulous old woman, the doting old man, and the prattling sophist before they have learned it. Others, led on by pride, weigh heavy words and philosophize amongst women concerning holy Scripture. Others - oh shame! - learn from women what they teach to men, and (as if that were not enough) glibly expound to others that which they themselves do not understand. I forebear to speak of those of my own profession who, attaining a knowledge of the holy Scriptures after mundane learning, tickle the ears of the people with affected and studied expressions, and declare that everything they say is to be taken as the law of God. Not bothering to learn what the prophets and the apostles have maintained, they wrest incongruous testimonies into their own senses-as if distorting passages and twisting the Bible to their individual and contradictory whims were the genuine way of teaching, and not a corrupt one.
I do not wish to place in the number of such lay writers some theologians whom I consider men of profound learning and devout behavior, and who are therefore held by me in great esteem and veneration Yet I cannot deny that I feel some discomfort which I should like to have removed, when I hear them pretend to the power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the Bible, and then believe themselves not bound to answer the opposing reasons and experiences. In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. They add further that if in the inferior sciences any conclusion should be taken as certain in virtue of demonstrations or experiences, while in the Bible another conclusion is found repugnant to this, then the professors of that science should themselves undertake to undo their proofs and discover the fallacies in their own experiences, without bothering the theologians and exegetes. For, they say, it does not become the dignity of theology to stoop to the investigation of fallacies in the subordinate sciences; it is sufficient for her merely to determine the truth of a given conclusion with absolute authority, secure in her inability to err.

Now the physical conclusions in which they say we ought to be satisfied by Scripture, without glossing or expounding it in senses different from the literal, are those concerning which the Bible always speaks in the same manner and which the holy Fathers all receive and expound in the same way. But with regard to these judgments I have had occasion to consider several things, and I shall set them forth in order that I may be corrected by those who understand more than I do in these matters - for to their decisions I submit at all times.

First, I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the virtues which entitle sacred theology to the title of "queen." It might deserve that name by reason of including everything that is included from all the other sciences and establishing everything by better methods and with profounder learning. It is thus, for example, that the rules for measuring fields and keeping accounts are much more excellently contained in arithmetic and in the geometry of Euclid than in the practices of surveyors and accountants. Or theology might be queen because of being occupied with a subject which excels in dignity all the subjects which compose the other sciences, and because her teachings are divulged in more sublime ways.

That the title and authority of queen belongs to theology in the first sense, I think, will not be affirmed by theologians who have any skill in the other sciences. None of these, I think, will say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine are much more excellently contained in the Bible than they are in the books of Archimedes, Ptolemy, Boethius, and Galen. Hence it seems likely that regal preeminence is given to theology in the second sense; that is, by reason of its subject and the miraculous communication of divine revelation of conclusions which could not be conceived by men in any other way, concerning chiefly the attainment of eternal blessedness.

Let us grant then that theology is conversant with the loftiest divine contemplation, and occupies the regal throne among sciences by dignity But acquiring the highest authority in this way, lf she does not descend to the lower and humbler speculations of the subordinate sciences and has no regard for them because they are not concerned with blessedness, then her professors should not arrogate to them-selves the authority to decide on controversies in professions which they have neither studied nor practiced. Why, this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect but knowing himself free to command, should undertake to administer medicines and erect buildings according to his whim - at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy collapse of his edifices.

Again, to command that the very professors of astronomy themselves see to the refutation of their own observations and proofs as mere fallacies and sophisms is to enjoin something that lies beyond any possibility of accomplishment. For this would amount to commanding that they must not see what they see and must not understand what they know, and that in searching they must find the opposite of what they actually encounter. Before this could be done they would have to be taught how to make one mental faculty command another, and the inferior powers the superior, so that the imagination and the will might be forced to believe the opposite of what the intellect understands. I am referring at all times to merely physical propositions, and not to supernatural things which are matters of faith.

I entreat those wise and prudent Fathers to consider with great care the difference that exists between doctrines subject to proof and those subject to opinion. Considering the force exerted by logical deductions, they may ascertain that it is not in the power of the professors of demonstrative sciences to change their opinions at will and apply themselves first to one side and then to the other. There is a great difference between commanding a mathematician or a philosopher and influencing a lawyer or a merchant, for demonstrated conclusions about things in nature or in the heavens cannot be changed with the same facility as opinions about what is or is not lawful in a contract, bargain, or bill of exchange. This difference was well understood by the learned and holy Fathers, as proven by their having taken great pains in refuting philosophical fallacies. This may be found expressly in some of them; in particular, we find the following words of St. Augustine:

It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles, hence whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And according to our ability let us make this evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom so that we neither become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion.
From the above words I conceive that I may deduce this doctrine: That in the books of the sages of this world there are contained some physical truths which are soundly demonstrated, and others that are merely stated; as to the former, it is the office of wise divines to show that they do not contradict the holy Scriptures And as to the propositions which are stated but not rigorously demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved by them must be held undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every possible means.

Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously demonstrated-and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false. This seems very reasonable and natural, for those who believe an argument to be false may much more easily find the fallacies in it than men who consider it to be true and conclusive. Indeed, in the latter case it will happen that the more the adherents of an opinion turn over their pages, examine the arguments, repeat the observations, and compare the experiences, the more they will be confirmed in that belief. And Your Highness knows what happened to the late mathematician of the University of Pisa who undertook in his old age to look into the Copernican doctrine in the hope of shaking its foundations and refuting it, since he considered it false only because he had never studied it. As it fell out, no sooner had he understood its grounds, procedures, and demonstrations than he found himself persuaded, and from an opponent he became a very staunch defender of it. I might also name other mathematicians who, moved by my latest discoveries, have confessed it necessary to alter the previously accepted system of the world, as this is simply unable to subsist any longer.

If in order to banish the opinion in question from the world it were sufficient to stop the mouth of a single man-as perhaps those men persuade themselves who, measuring the minds of others by their own, think it impossible that this doctrine should be able to continue to find adherents-then that would be very easily done. But things stand otherwise. To carry out such a decision it would be necessary not only to prohibit the book of Copernicus and the writings of other authors who follow the same opinion, but to ban the whole science of astronomy. Furthermore, it would be necessary to forbid men to look at the heavens, in order that they might not see Mars and Venus sometimes quite near the earth and sometimes very distant, the variation being so great that Venus is forty times and Mars sixty times as large at one time as at another. And it would be necessary to prevent Venus being seen round at one time and forked at another, with very thin horns; as well as many other sensory observations which can never be reconciled with the Ptolemaic system in any way, but are very strong arguments for the Copernican. And to ban Copernicus now that his doctrine is daily reinforced by many new observations and by the learned applying themselves to the reading of his book, after this opinion has been allowed and tolerated for these many years during which it was less followed and less confirmed, would seem in my judgment to be a contravention of truth, and an attempt to hide and suppress her the more as she revealed herself the more clearly and plainly. Not to abolish and censure his whole book, but only to condemn as erroneous this particular proposition, would (if I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of men, since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved that it was heresy to believe. And to prohibit the whole science would be to censure a hundred passages of holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven. For let no one believe that reading the lofty concepts written in that book leads to nothing further than the mere seeing of the splendor of the sun and the stars and their rising and setting, which is as far as the eyes of brutes and of the vulgar can penetrate. Within its pages are couched mysteries so profound and concepts so sublime that the vigils, labors, and studies of hundreds upon hundreds of the most acute minds have still not pierced them, even after the continual investigations for thousands of years. The eyes of an idiot perceive little by beholding the external appearance of a human body, as compared with the wonderful contrivances which a careful and practiced anatomist or philosopher discovers in that same body when he seeks out the use of all those muscles, tendons, nerves, and bones; or when examining the functions of the heart and the other principal organs, he seeks the seat of the vital faculties, notes and observes the admirable structure of the sense organs, and (without ever ceasing in his amazement and delight) contemplates the receptacles of the imagination, the memory, and the understanding. Likewise, that which presents itself to mere sight is as nothing in comparison with the high marvels that the ingenuity of learned men discovers in the heavens by long and accurate observation. And that concludes what I have to say on this matter.

...

Your Highness may thus see how irregularly those persons proceed who in physical disputes arrange scriptural passages (and often those illunderstood by them) in the front rank of their arguments. If these men really believe themselves to have the true sense of a given passage, it necessarily follows that they believe they have in hand the absolute truth of the conclusion they intend to debate. Hence they must know that they enjoy a great advantage over their opponents, whose lot it is to defend the false position; and he who maintains the truth will have many sense ­experiences and rigorous proofs on his side, whereas his antagonist cannot make use of anything but illusory appearances, quibbles, and fallacies. Now if these men know they have such advantages over the enemy even when they stay within proper bounds and produce no weapons other than those proper to philosophy, why do they, in the thick of the battle, betake themselves to a dreadful weapon which cannot be turned aside, and seek to vanquish the opponent by merely exhibiting it? If I may speak frankly, I believe they have themselves been vanquished, and, feeling unable to stand up against the assaults of the adversary, they seek ways of holding him off. To that end they would forbid him the use of reason, divine gift of Providence, and would abuse the just authority of holy Scripture- which, in the general opinion of theologians, can never oppose manifest experiences and necessary demonstrations when rightly understood and applied. If I am correct, it will stand them in no stead to go running to the Bible to cover up their inability to understand (let alone resolve) their opponents' arguments, for the opinion which they fight has never been condemned by the holy Church. If they wish to proceed in sincerity, they should by silence confess themselves unable to deal with such matters. Let them freely admit that although they may argue that a position is false, it is not in their power to censure a position as erroneous - or in the power of any­one except the Supreme Pontiff, or the Church Councils. Reflecting upon this, and knowing that a proposition cannot be both true and heretical, let them employ themselves in the business which is proper to them; namely, demonstrating its falsity. And when that is revealed, either there will no longer be any necessity to prohibit it (since it will have no followers), or else it may safely be prohibited without the risk of any scandal.

Therefore let these men begin to apply themselves to an examination of the arguments of Copernicus and others, leaving condemnation of the doctrine as erroneous and heretical to the proper authorities. Among the circumspect and most wise Fathers, and in the absolute wisdom of one who cannot err, they may never hope to find the rash decisions into which they allow them selves to be hurried by some particular passion or personal interest. With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of faith, certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the power of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact. Therefore in my judgment one should first be assured of the necessary and immutable truth of the fact, over which no man has power. This is wiser counsel than to condemn either side in the absence of such certainty, thus depriving oneself of continued authority and ability to choose by determining things which are now undetermined and open and still lodged in the will of supreme authority. And in brief, if it is impossible for a conclusion to be declared heretical while we remain in doubt as to its truth, then these men are wasting their time clamoring for condemnation of the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, which they have not yet demonstrated to be impossible or false.

Now let us consider the extent to which the famous passage in Joshua can be accepted without altering the literal meaning of its words, and under what conditions the day might be greatly lengthened by the Sun's obedience to Joshua's command that it stand still.

If the celestial motions are understood according to the Ptolemaic system, this could never happen at all. For the movement of the Sun through the ecliptic is from West to East, and hence it is opposite to the movement of the sphere of fixed stars, which in that system causes night and day. Therefore it is obvious that if the Sun should cease its own proper motion the day would become shorter not longer. The way to lengthen the day would be to speed up the Sun's proper motion; and to cause the Sun to remain above the horizon for some time in one place without declining towards the west, it would be necessary to hasten this motion until it was equal to that of the primum mobile [sphere of fixed stars]. This would require accelerating the usual speed of the Suns by a factor of about three hundred and sixty.

...

But I wish to consider next whether this very event may not be understood more consistently with what we have read in the Book of Joshua in terms of the Copernican system, adding a further observation that I have recently made about the body of the Sun.

...

Suppose, then, that in the miracle of Joshua the whole system of celestial rotations stood still, in accordance with the opinion of the authors named above. Now in order that all the arrangements should not be disturbed by stopping only a single celestial body, introducing great disorder throughout nature, I shall next assume that the Sun, though fixed in one place, rotates on its own axis making a complete revolution in about a month, as I believe is conclusively proved in my Letters on Sunspots. [...] And just as if the motion of the heart should cease in an animal, so all motions of its limbs would also cease, thus if the rotation of the Sun were to stop, the rotations of the planets would stop too.

...

The Sun, then, being the origin of light and the source of motion, when God willed that at Joshua's command the whole system of the world should rest and remain in the same state for many hours, it sufficed to make the Sun stand still. When it stopped, all other revolutions ceased; the Earth, Moon and Sun remained in the same pattern as before, as did all the planets; nor in all that time did day decline towards night, for day was miraculously prolonged. And in this manner, by the stopping of the Sun, without in the least disturbing the other features or configurations of the stars, the day could be lengthened on Earth -- and this agrees exactly with the literal sense of the sacred text.

But if I am not mistaken, something of which we are to take no small acount is that by the aid of this Copernican system we have the literal, open, and easy sense of another statement that we read in this same miracle, that the Sun stood still in the midst of the heavens. ... we may avoid [all problems of interpretation] if, in agreement with the Copernican system, we place the Sun in the "midst" - that is, in the centre - of the celestial orbs and planetary rotations, as it is most necessary to do. Then take any hour of the day, either noon, or any hour as close to evening as you please, and the day would be lengthened and all the celestial revolutions stopped by the Sun's standing still in the midst of the heavens; that is, in the centre, where it resides.

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:44 pm
by Forum Monk
Canuckster1127 wrote:What's your opinion about the whole geocentric solar system?
First I would like to address the issue of geocentrism and the history of the Catholic Church and afterward specific points you post which I object to.

Firstly, I would like to say that I am considered protestant in my views but I strongly object to the many misrepresentations and criticisms foisted onto Catholics mainly as a result of our religious bias. My advice to anyone who wants to understand the Catholic position is, read the Catholic view in addition to some well documented and reasoned protestant views. There are too many agendas aimed at discrediting the catholics and it disturbs me greatly. Here are few posts with their view:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church — paragraph 105 says “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.
Though Pope John Paul II did officially apologize for mistreatment of Galileo, the Catholic church has not officially endorsed the heliocentric view though many according to this apologist within the Catholic Church have accepted it:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... h0006.html
With these facts, we can now refute the two charges. As for the first charge, Galileo was clearly not persecuted, nor did he seem to suffer much for his views. Such punishment as he received he brought upon himself by refusing to moderate his statements or to take account of the dangers to the faith of ordinary people by widespread teaching of his ideas.

As for the second charge, at no time did any official Church teaching condemn heliocentrism as heretical. The Pope did not, nor did any bishop, nor did the Inquisition itself. The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church other scientists then and later were perfectly willing to accept Church guidance in this area, and gradually heliocentrism came to be accepted.
What is known historically, is that the goecentric model of the universe was established around the 4th century B.C. and most common people believed it. Further, because few other published works were available to most people, the scriptures were consulted and appeared to confirm the scientific point of view. By the time of the 12th and 13th centuries, revolutions in thought were occuring with a renewed interest in the classical thought of the greeks. Prominent christians in the church endored the geocentric view and and found support in the holy scripture. Even, Augustine was a geocentrist.

Eventually, as we all know, the Copernican model of heliocentrism introduced a new paradigm (which he was reluctant to publish until late in life, supposedly due to fear of the church). Later obersvation by Galileo further supported the heliocentric model to the disdain of the church, whos leaders were applying a geocentric interpretation to the scriptures.

What all of this shows is the futility and foolishness of applying a scientific hermeneutic to scriptural interpretation. When the next great, scientific theory comes along, the interpretors are left with egg on their faces trying to explain how the Bible supposedly supported their view but their view was wrong. This is why I argue against such scientific application and intepretation of scripture.

From a post I made May 17:
The Word of God is the sword of spirit. We must defend Him with all diligence and guard against the attacks of the enemy. If we destabilize the Word we are defeating ourseleves and by reinterpreting the scripture to suit our prevailing idea this is the danger we face when the next great theory comes along.
I'm not trying to tweak you on this, I'm sincerely interested.
The remainder of your post contradicts this statement.
I've seen you argue that you believe long periods of time should be discounted because the original audience either lacked the ability to understand or they did not see that message to that extent (although many certainly saw them as more than 24 hour days).
This is a misrepresentation. I have never argued that the original audience lacked the ability to understand. I argued exactly the opposite many times. Where have I stated they could not understand?
Isn't that what happened with the Copernican Solar system? Isn't that a remarkably similar scenario where Church leaders held to the ptolemaic or geocentric model because it was clear to them that the language of Scripture demanded that the sun orbit the earth?

What happened in the aftermath? Wasn't there a huge fallout among society where the Church was discredited, scripture diminished in their eyes and the Church viewed as anti-intellectual?
It is exactly what many at this site and many prominent leaders of the church are doing today by applying a scientific interpretation to the scriptures. It appears history repeats itself everytime there is a scientific revolution.
I'm a huge fan of preserving embracing and accepting mystery and ambiguity in matters of Scriptural truth. The most important elements of Scriptural truth never will be reduced to pure logic. The Trinity, the reconciliation of Christ's being Fully God and Fully Human, etc will never be understood to a materialistic mind.
And neither will the creation. It is super-science as well as the resurrection and any of the mysteries you have mentioned.
Especially when solid Church History and Biblical exegesis has allowed for and even promoted that understanding.
I reiterate. The exegesis spoken of in the above quotation is highly disputed.
and I'm very sure that despite the fact that the Bible and Christ promise we will look foolish to the world, that that is not sufficient reason to seek to promote ourselves as fools as a goal.
Its quite obvious, Canuckster, you fear looking foolish (at least scientifically) as this seems to be a repeating theme of yours. But I also see your subtle attempts, once again to misrepresent me and my beliefs by implying that I am promoting foolishness as a means to an end or as an honorable estate. It is completely false.

As I see it, those who attempt to apply their scientific preconceptions to the interpetation of scripture are making the same mistake as their 13th century counterparts. I am not introducing any concepts of western thought, nor philosophies, nor am I demanding consideration of any specific religious view in the interpretation of Genesis. I am appealing to scriptures only.

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:04 pm
by Canuckster1127
Canuckster1127 wrote:What's your opinion about the whole geocentric solar system?
Forum Monk wrote:First I would like to address the issue of geocentrism and the history of the Catholic Church and afterward specific points you post which I object to.

Firstly, I would like to say that I am considered protestant in my views but I strongly object to the many misrepresentations and criticisms foisted onto Catholics mainly as a result of our religious bias. My advice to anyone who wants to understand the Catholic position is, read the Catholic view in addition to some well documented and reasoned protestant views. There are too many agendas aimed at discrediting the catholics and it disturbs me greatly. Here are few posts with their view:
I certainly would object to such a misrepresentation of the Catholic Church. I'm well aware that there is much that can take place in that realm and I take pains not to unjustly add to that trend.

I really wish you had dealt more with the substance of the Cathloic Apology (which is secondary to the direct history of the event and unfortunately in places, a bit self-serving) as well as the direct comments of Galileo which of course are primary and show what he was dealing with at that time.

Simply turning the comments around and dealing with them as anti-Catholic doesn't address the substance of the issues which are real despite both some of the mischaracterization of some toward the Church and or the obfuscation by some apologists. I think John Paul II was right to make an apology in that instance and he did, despite the misgivings of those who either didn't see the need or didn't want to do so.
Forum Monk wrote: From a post I made May 17:
The Word of God is the sword of spirit. We must defend Him with all diligence and guard against the attacks of the enemy. If we destabilize the Word we are defeating ourseleves and by reinterpreting the scripture to suit our prevailing idea this is the danger we face when the next great theory comes along.
There is no danger in theories in Science. Theories are simply an attempt to come up with a working explanation of why something is the way it is and as we both know, theories will usually change and adjust based upon the compilation of more data. Theories are not truth, but they are instrumental in the pursuit of truth. Truth in this light is not a threat to the Word of God, it is a secondary source. Anti-Intellectualism is not defending the Word of God.
Forum Monk wrote:It is exactly what many at this site and many prominent leaders of the church are doing today by applying a scientific interpretation to the scriptures. It appears history repeats itself everytime there is a scientific revolution.
You're making your own overstatement when you claim a scientific interpretation of Scripture is being made by many on this site. In fact it's rather tedious to continue to repeat, but in the hopes that the point may settle in, here it is again. The major premise of this board is that the Bible and Science need not be inherently at odds with each other. Scripture is seen as primary in the OEC position promoted here and elsewhere.
Forum Monk wrote:And neither will the creation. It is super-science as well as the resurrection and any of the mysteries you have mentioned.
Certainly many elements of it may well be. In your zeal to avoid the higher level materialistism of atheistic evolutionism which we both reject, you appear to me, too ready to reject the pure science that addresses straight forward issues such as age and evidence of God's creative acts which are part of God's natural revelation.
Forum Monk wrote:I reiterate. The exegesis spoken of in the above quotation is highly disputed.
Then why continue to try and maintain the illusion that you are above the YEC/OEC debate? You clearly argue against OEC exegesis in one regard in near absolute terms despite evidence from authoritative sources.
Forum Monk wrote:Its quite obvious, Canuckster, you fear looking foolish (at least scientifically) as this seems to be a repeating theme of yours. But I also see your subtle attempts, once again to misrepresent me and my beliefs by implying that I am promoting foolishness as a means to an end or as an honorable estate. It is completely false.
Here's a quote from you that would appear to me to be in conflict with your protestations to the contrary.
There is strength in foolishness, Canuckster, as you well know. As soon as you stand for Christ many will think you're foolish. But if you think the reconciliation of God and science brought about by reinterpretation of scripture is somehow more acceptable to the cause of Christ and less foolish looking to the outside world, I must, with all due respect, say you are deluded.
Example of you attributing this motive to me in the past and promoting foolishness as a virtue where Scripture is not clear or detailed on an issue such as age.

If you wish to disagree with that statement then please get off the fence and cease attempting to claim yourself above the conflict or willing to accept either when consistently arguing against one position.
Forum Monk wrote:As I see it, those who attempt to apply their scientific preconceptions to the interpetation of scripture are making the same mistake as their 13th century counterparts. I am not introducing any concepts of western thought, nor philosophies, nor am I demanding consideration of any specific religious view in the interpretation of Genesis. I am appealing to scriptures only.
[/quote]

Respectfully, no you're not. You're applying your own hermenuetic and attempting to claim it is not there in an attempt to declare your view on par with the Scriptures themselves. At least that is what I see from my perspective.

Blessings,

Bart

Re:

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:16 pm
by Gman
Forum Monk wrote:Gman, I am sorry that you missed the point. I was not attacking ID: the theory. I was stating how secular theories of origins do not mention God or intelligence as the source of origin for the universe and life. As for ID, (which is off-topic in the thread, my argument with ID (beside the fact it needs work in many areas, and beside the fact it is not falsifiable and beside the fact it makes no predictions, is simply, it fails to name the integillent one.
This is actually quite humorous... You say that ID fails to name the intelligent one? Again... Tell me... What is the correct way to specify the designer?? Again what about all the different names that are attributed to God in the OT? He is also called Elohim or creator God or designer... According to someone's exact description of God, what name should we use to specify God? Who has the correct name for God? Do we only trust those who use the correct pronunciation of God?

Also what God are you implying about? The Bible says that there are two Gods.. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Forum Monk wrote:I made no remarks about "ID: the theory" in this thread until now. I believe life was intelligently designed, myself. I don't believe it came about through naturalistic processes and so, at least as far as that goes, we agree.
How do you know how God created things? We don't know exactly how God created things.. All ID is saying is that it was the creator that created it.. Is there are problem with this?
Forum Monk wrote:You have the blueprints in Genesis. People who believe God may have used evolution are NOT, repeat NOT, the enemies of God and there is nothing wrong with being curious about the natural world and how God did what He did. And really at this point, I should clarify one thing. Science in an of itself is not evil. It is how we interpret evidence which is flawed, corrupt and the result of deception. Evolution is a theory that explains how life spontaniously emerged and eventually expanded into the plethora of species and diversity alive today. It does not mention God nor require God. It has never been proposed as model for how God accomplished creation. Only christians, recently, have attempted to make this supposition and secular science rejects it.
Ok, so in your view, do nothing with our educational system as it stands today and let the atheists run amok then with their lawyers and political activists.. The evolutionists are going to love you for this stance... Well done..
Forum Monk wrote:I suppose you stated this thinking I was defending Darwinism. I was not so I hope its clear now.
I guess I don't understand then.. It seems you clearly stand against creationism (in any form, YEC or OEC) in the public arena.. The only other alternative then is Darwinian evolution.. Go let them rule then...
Forum Monk wrote:It is the recognition that God performed a miraculous work, without the aide of a process, or in correspondence with our scientific views, but rather in a manner which testifies to his power and glory. Something so unique it would leave no doubt to believer and unbeliever that God is God. I guess in these last days, doubt has still managed to overcome many.
No, remember there is no God.. There is no proof of his existence.. Science cannot proclaim him, what you are only left with is natural processes to define our world..

Re: is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:35 pm
by zoegirl
Galileo wrote:It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true senses of Scripture, would impose upon others an obligation to subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to manifest reason and sense, if they had any authority to do so. God forbid that this sort of abuse should gain countenance and authority, for then in a short time it would be necessary to proscribe all the contemplative sciences. People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them. The former, glancing superficially through the Bible, would arrogate to themselves the authority to decree upon every question of physics on the strength of some word which they have misunderstood, and which was employed by the sacred authors for some different purpose. And the smaller number of understanding men could not dam up the furious torrent of such people, who would gain the majority of followers simply because it is much more pleasant to gain a reputation for wisdom without effort or study than to consume oneself tirelessly in the most laborious disciplines. Let us therefore render thanks to Almighty God, who in His beneficence protects us from this danger by depriving such persons of all authority, reposing the power of consultation, decision, and decree on such important matters in the high wisdom and benevolence of most prudent Fathers, and in the supreme authority of those who cannot fail to order matters properly under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Hence we need not concern ourselves with the shallowness of those men whom grave and holy authors rightly reproach, and of whom in particular St. Jerome said, in reference to the Bible:
Wow, this says it all

Thanks, Canuckster