Conclusions:PQRC 2
| Reconciliation Challenge PQRC 2 — Does the earth move? | ||||||||||
| There is a body of scientific evidence that the earth is spinning on its axis and rotating around the sun. However the Bible states that God "set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved." (Psalm 104:5, ESV) and the experience of Joshua (Joshua 10:10-15) and Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:8) back this up. Can these be reconciled? | ||||||||||
|
Does the earth move?
- See Structured decision for the format of a "Conclusion".
Conclusions generally in favour of successful resolution
Personal conclusions of User:Prue
A statement of the facts
The Bible contains various references to the ancient view of the world as a fixed object, with an expanse of air in between it and the solid dome (firmament) upon which the stars are fixed, with waters above the firmament and waters below (the realm of Leviathan). This view was common to other ancient near eastern peoples. The ancient view and modern astronomical views are contradictory.
The astronomical observations and mathematical calculations of the past 500 years demonstate that the earth is one of many planets that orbit the sun, and the sun one of many stars orbiting our galaxy. We now think of the earth as the blue planet, the whole sphere fitting onto one screen and looking just a bit bigger than the moon as a typical satellite photo would show.
If such passages are understood to express the dominant world view of the time literally, this is in conflict with modern understanding. This conflict can be resolved by conceding either error in the Biblical view, error in the literal interpretation of such passages, or error in modern astronomy (modern being the past 500 years).
Identification of issues involved
Underlying the conflict is the assumption that the Bible is true for all times and is without error. If we expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate, and there are passages that contradict the scientific body of knowledge then this tension is deeply challenging to faith in the truth of the Bible. On the other hand, if we do not expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate, such passages are not challenging to faith.
Issues surrounding the nature of the Bible, including doctrines about inspiration, inerrancy and authority are behind the discussion on this topic.
Issues around interpretation of the Bible are also relevant. Sensitivity to the fact that the Bible was not only written in a foreign and ancient language, but also written in ancient concepts using ancient literary forms. If we expect to be able to understand and interpret the Bible easily, we are sure to miss the original meaning(s).
Summary of solutions offered
1. Reject science (as an act of faith you won’t take into account the difference in time zones if you phone a friend on the other side of the world).
2. Reject the interpretation that these passages were expressing a literal understanding of the earth as immoveable, and insist on a figurative interpretation compatible with the discoveries of science - the text never meant that the world literally has solid fixed foundations, even to the person who first wrote the words.
3. Reject the assumption that the Bible is true on all matters of scientific fact. It was not known that the earth is a planet that orbits the sun and we would not expect the Bible to describe the world in such terms.
The historical solution was to reject science and violently execute anyone who disagreed with the traditional interpretation of scripture.
Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions
1. Griffiths argues against harmonising the Biblical text and modern science. He argues that we must interpret the Bible according to what the ancients believed, and to believe otherwise is inconsistent with “a belief in the veracity and verbal inspiration of the scriptures”.
2. No arguments were proposed to harmonise the meaning of the Biblical text and modern astronomy.
3. Pearson concedes error in the views expressed in the biblical literature, resolving the contradiction by challenging the assumption that the bible is true in a scientifically accurate sense.
A decision or non-decision as appropriate, considering relevance to salvation
I agree with Griffiths’ argument against harmonising the Biblical text and modern science, but I disagree with his conclusion. My view is that we should not expect to find scientifically accurate ideas in the Bible.
Many of our brothers believed in an immovable earth, and even in modern times have rejected astronomy for the sake of their understanding of scripture, but to insist that others deny the evidence of science is foolish. Fortunately we do not have the power to insist with fire, but there are many other ways to harm a non-conformist, and it is our treatment of others that Jesus holds us accountable for (Matt 25:31-46).
Recommendations
We should be aware of bias in our own reading and aware that we may interpret text to mean something different from what was originally meant.
I read the story of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine as a parable warning us to exercise humility in our own interpretation of scripture, never being absolutely certain that our view is the correct interpretation, and careful not to condemn others.
Name(s) of author(s) Prue (talk)
Personal conclusions of User:Bruce
I concur with Prue's conclusions with respect to the facts, the issues involved (with one slight reservation), and the solutions offered (with another reservation).
The underlying issue involved, as I see it, can be summed up in the question Are we willing to respect God's choice of the medium by which he communicates to us? To read it literally is to disrespect its Author, who is creator of all: we must make the effort to hear its message as God has chosen to give it to us.
Bias can be unconscious, and deeply burned in, and it distorts our view of facts, our understanding of texts such as the Bible, and our process of making decisions or coming to conclusions. In the matter of whether the earth is fixed and immovable, it's easy to succumb to a dismissive Oh yes we've heard all that before, failing to recognise the strong scriptural arguments for Geocentrism (false though it is) and thus dodging the lesson for us, which is about our own responsibility to read the Bible correctly. Sometimes we are called on to decide on a simple matter of fact, but more often it's about weighing up competing arguments backed by competing claims to authority. Sometimes, as in Galileo's case, by people who claim to speak for God, or to define the correct interpretation of Scripture, and who have power to enforce their views.
With respect to solutions I disagree with Prue's last line about what the historical solution has been. The Protestant stories of Galileo and Giordano Bruno have been seriously criticised: apparently heliocentrism was only one of Giordano's heresies and his behaviour was insulting; and there is a strong case that the elderly Galileo was not physically tortured but merely (!) taken into a dungeon and shown what he would suffer if he did not recant. Whatever the facts, though, there is a strong vein of victim-blaming in the story, as there also is, it seems to me, in modern efforts to justify campaigns against those who accept evolution.
Paul has attempted to harmonise Psalm 104 with heliocentrism, but I do not believe that the attempt is successful. It makes no difference that the text is poetical: as I wrote earlier, poetry can express facts, Australia is still girt by sea whether or not the national anthem is poetry. I understand Psalm 104 to be a celebration of the power of God as Creator and Sustainer, as revealed in the created world around us: as such it necessarily describes the perceived facts of the world around us.
I agree that the case of Bro Griffiths is instructive, and I am grateful to C C Walker for publishing it so that now, a century later, we can hold it up beside similar arguments against the discoveries of modern biology. The difference between then and now has surprised me, too: I didn't previously realise that the Biblical case against heliocentrism is so much stronger than the Biblical case against evolution.
Personal conclusions of User:Paul
A statement of the facts
The Bible is not a scientific textbook.
Identification of issues involved
If the Bible had been written as an accurate summary of all of science for all ages then a few millennia ago it would have been dismissed and rejected by its audience. To purport that the Bible must be accepted as a scientifically accurate account will also lead to dismissive rejection by all who desire to see God in all aspects of the cosmos. And just as some people are scientifically minded and others are not then the Bible must be read and interpreted as relevant to both. God had all people in mind when the Bible was written.
Summary of solutions offered
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions
Reasoning relevant to balancing the arguments and resolving the problem
Acceptance by all that some may view parts of Scripture as unscientific but they still believe that such Scripture is spiritually beneficial. All can ponder why God has inspired human writers to write what has been compiled into our Bible. We have surely moved beyond witch hunts and inquisitions. We should not dismiss or ignore passages of Scripture that do not fit our scientific disposition or mindset for all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is spiritually profitable so that we aspire to be perfect like Christ.
A decision or non-decision as appropriate, considering relevance to salvation
As Prue stated “we should be aware of bias in our own reading and aware that we may interpret text to mean something different from what was originally meant.” We must accept that all scripture which is given by the inspiration of God is spiritually beneficial and that people are different in how they think on the Scriptures and how they grow spiritually.
Recommendations
We need to show tolerance and inclusiveness no matter who we are (whether scientifically minded or not). The fundamentals about Christ and our salvation in Christ have not changed from the beginning.
Name(s) of author(s) Paul Paul (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Conclusions generally against successful resolution
{{#setmainimage:Sutherland logo-icon.png}}
