Critical appraisal: "Does the earth move?"

Problem, Question, or Reconciliation Challenge

There is a body of scientific evidence that the earth is spinning on its axis and rotating around the sun. However the Bible clearly 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?

Paul — I would suggest the removal of the word "clearly" as the previous and subsequent verses in Psalm 104 makes extensive use of figurative language. Therefore it would not necessarily be appropriate to assume a factual or scientific interpretation of v5.

Bruce — With my Cardinal St Robert Bellarmine hat on I suppose I'd have to protest that there is nothing figurative about "qui fundasti terram super basem suam non commovebitur in saeculum et in saeculum" and give references to the Church Fathers. But I've deleted it anyway. Modus operandi matter: Should discussion and chit-chat at this point go into the Discussion page if it gets extensive, I wonder. Maybe if the one who proposes the PQRC disagrees with the critique, s/he should put in a note to say "Taking this to the Discussion page". (See Decisions to make about our modus operandi.)

Prue — Although I enjoy a bit of latin, especially while imagining Bruce dressed up in a 15th C Cardinal outfit, - I would vote for all latin, greek, or hebrew to go to chit chat (or their own pages). A good point though. There are passages we tend to interpret figuratively so they make sense to us, but weren't originally figurative. Another modus operandi question (before relocating all latin to discussion): do we endorse our own problems? Or should we not think of them as our own once they reach sign off point? (See Decisions to make about our modus operandi.)

Bruce — Not that long ago: he straddled the 16th and 17th Centuries. He was one of the judges who condemned Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake for heresy, including Heliocentrism, in 1600. I'm sorry if you wasted your time figuring out the Latin. Yes, it was unnecessary, just me trying to think myself into the role — but surely Greek and Hebrew are necessary. For example, when the NIV deliberately mistranslates the Hebrew of Genesis to shoehorn in a fundamentalist reading of it - how do we talk about that without getting into the Hebrew?

Criteria for Critical Appraisal

for all questions and definitions of "problems reconciling our various understandings of Scripture with the discoveries of science"

Clear Aims

Its aims are clear: terms used are clearly defined, especially if they are new or can be used in different ways.

Paul — Yes with the removal of "clearly".

Unbiased

It is unbiased, not presupposing any viewpoint or answer.

Paul — Yes with the removal of "clearly".

Respectful

It is respectful: not insulting, provocative or slanderous.

Paul — Yes

Focused

It has a clear focus, neither too broad nor too narrow, and is free of equivocation.

Paul — The inclusion of "the experience of Joshua and Hezekiah" should be tied down to specific quotes for efficiency of focus.

Bruce — Done. Another modus operandi question: how many quotes are too many in the description of a PQRC? There are more that could be listed in this case, but imo they'd be better left to discussion, because otherwise it might invite questions about relevance. What if you agree with the Hezekiah quote but not the Josiah one, and others disagree, etc.? It might not be more efficient to list relevant verses, either – what if (for the sake of argument) we found that Kings, Chronicles and the NT said three different things about the same incident? (Answering my own question with another question: there could be a subtle misunderstanding or equivocation there, so maybe it should be dealt with here?) On the other hand, "what verses are you referring to?" is a perfectly reasonable question. Should we wing it on common sense? See Decisions to make about our modus operandi.

Paul — Considering the passages, Psalms 104 is different in nature to the other 2 as it has a more construction of the earth feel than of "tinkering" with a working cosmos perspective of the other 2.

Feasible

It appears able to be researched and at least partial conclusions reached beyond reasonable doubt.

Paul — Yes

Relevant

It is relevant to the task in hand, and can't be rewritten to be more directly relevant.

Paul — Yes

Important

Answers to it and the process of seeking them will be informative and useful.

Paul — Agreed

Go-ahead

Editors' endorsement

We agree that this is an accurate statement of an aspect of our task.
~	~	~	Prue	Paul

Going ahead at Does the earth move? — Bruce (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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?

Suggested Appraised Formulated Discussed Conclusions here here here here here