Does the earth move?

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

Rationale for practising on this Reconciliation Challenge

• Bruce — I suggested this topic for practice because, as with Meteorology, the scientific concept of Heliocentrism appears to contradict Scripture, but is generally accepted as true by Bible believers, even those who aspire to a "literal" reading of it. Thinking clearly about Heliocentrism will help us to think clearly and argue well, whether for or against, about Evolution. Both Meteorology and Heliocentrism are closely analogous to Evolution in that all three are the product of scientific disciplines which describe, explain and predict natural phenomena which the Bible attributes to divine action. A chain of Bible references relevant to Heliocentrism can be found beginning at the page with the tongue-in-cheek title Theistic Heliocentrism.{{#setmainimage:Sutherland logo-icon.png}}

— While of interest to some, this does not address the questions that prompted the establishment of a working group at the business meeting in March 2018. —Colin (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

— Agreed. The AGM of Sutherland Christadelphians took no action on those questions, and these resolutions were proposed instead of them, and agreed to without dissent. This question is an opportunity to improve our skills in dealing with these important & difficult matters. — Bruce (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Reconciliation challenge (PQRC 2)

• understanding(s) of Scripture:

Some believe that Psalm 104:5 teaches that God specifically designed foundations for the Earth to be set on, with the intention that it should never be moved. Joshua is recorded as having seen the sun stand still and Hezekiah is recorded as having seen it move backwards: both of these testify to the fact that the Sun moves, not the Earth.

• discoveries of Science:

Some scientists who study Astronomy believe that the Earth moves in two different ways: rotating on its axis and also orbiting the Sun.

• summary of the problem:

If the Bible teaches that the Earth does not move, it contradicts scientific evidence that the earth moves around the sun.

Editors' endorsement of this summary of the problem

We agree that this is an accurate statement of the problem.
Paul	Prue (talk)	Bruce	~	~

Solutions already proposed

• by Christadelphians

Prue (talk) — Mike Pearson includes the ancient belief that the earth does not move (p42) in a list of examples of beliefs held by people in the bible that we now know are not scientifically accurate. (Section 2 of The Fourth Conversation) He argues that scientific inaccuracy, when considered in context, does not “diminish the authenticity or authority of God’s word from a theological perspective”. (p 42)He also warns against simply labelling language that is reflective of ancient beliefs (such as that the earth does not move) as figurative (p47). Rather we should read the bible with an awareness that it was not written for us, and uses language and concepts that the original audience would have understood. He concludes that “God used concepts as people understood them at the time to discuss and establish spiritual principles, not scientific ones.” (p47) and “Ensuring creation was understood in a scientifically accurate manner was not God’s priority compared to spiritual matters.” (p 48)

• by others

Paul — An interesting read (except for some doctrinal error) is the following link: Genesis and Ancient Cosmic Geography that says the Bible was written in the context of its audience's "cultural understanding of the cosmos" and that the Bible's "purpose isn’t to offer a scientific description of the world". And finally: "while the world functioned in the same manner as it does today, their (the original Bible audience) understanding of those functions differed dramatically. Today, we benefit from several thousand more years of scientific discovery and therefore have a larger context for the universe than those in the Ancient Near East."

Bruce — Cardinal Robert Bellarmine concurred in the decision to condemn Giordano Bruno to death for heresy, and to the extent that Heliocentrism was one of his errors, Bellarmine was not without good reasons from the Bible and the tradition of the church. See below and at Ecclesiastes 1:5. His 1615 letter to Paolo Foscarini, who supported Galileo and attempted to prove that the new theory was not opposed to Scripture, can be found in English translation here.

Christadelphians arguing against any resolution

Bro T. Griffiths, in a Letter to the Editor of the Christadelphian Magazine published in 1916, argued strongly for "the old Jewish system of cosmogony, of a plane earth at rest and a sun and stellar heavens in motion" and rejects any modification of his reading of scripture in order to compromise with science.

He argues that the criterion [for the true teaching of the Scriptures] is, “What saith the scriptures?” not “What the scriptures can be made to say?”

We know the process by which the Bible is made to harmonise with the fallacies of popular theology, and it is evident also that the same process is demanded to square the Bible with the figments of modern astronomy. The seeming harmony in both cases can only be effected by the adoption of unreasonable and dishonest methods in dealing with the plain words of scripture.

The full letter is here.

Relevant Scriptures

Psalm 104:5

Psalm 93:1

Joshua 10:10-15

A chain of Scriptural references relevant to Geocentrism and Heliocentrism begins here →

Free Discussion

Bruce (Please note, writing from the point of view of a geocentrist!)
— Psalm 104:5 states two plain facts:

1. firstly that God "set(s) the earth on its foundations"; and
2. secondly the reason why he did it (or does it): "so that it should never be moved" (ESV) or "so that it shall never be shaken" (NRSV).

This "movement" cannot refer to earthquakes — if it did, God's method would obviously have been a failure, because earthquakes happen! The context is a hymn to the real, natural world, and to real human and animal life upon it. After describing the creation of heaven and earth it moves seamlessly on to mountains, valleys, rivers, springs, wild animals, birds - all literal things, every one of them. God is praised for his on-going provision for living creatures: he causes literal grass to grow for literal cattle, and "plants for people to use" - surely this cannot be metaphorical. He brings forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the human heart, oil to make the face shine, and bread to strengthen the human heart. This is clearly literal fact. The earth that brings forth food is the same earth that God set on its foundations, the earth that will never be moved. Scientists might genuinely believe that the earth moves, but Scripture says that it does not, and cannot. Either the scientists and their science must be wrong, or the Bible.

As for the fact that God spread out the earth on the waters (Psalm 136:5-6), there is no contradiction with the fact that it has foundations. The Bible does not say that it is floating on the waters, and even if that is the case, it does not say that it is bobbing around like a cork. The earth is huge, and if it were to move on the waters at all (and Psalm 104 says it does not) it would move very slowly because of its vast size. Describing the fact that God put the earth on the waters beneath, Psalm 24:2 employs the terms founded and established — what could be the plain meaning of these words, if not that it will never be moved?

The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Heliocentrists claim that because these psalms are poetical language they cannot be teaching facts. This is wrong. In the ancient world, like the modern world, poetical language is often used to convey facts. Take hymns, for example. Who would say that Australia is not girt by sea, just because the national anthem is written in poetry? Plain, clear language is obvious, whether it is in poetry or prose.

Psalms 104, 136 and 24 are only three proof texts for the true doctrine of Geocentrism: there are many more. Follow the chain of Bible references beginning from Theistic Heliocentrism: Joshua saw the sun and moon stand still in the sky (how could that happen if it is the sun that cannot move?); Hannah's faith was in the Lord who owns the pillars of the earth, and set the world on them — was she mistaken?; David in vision saw the very foundations of the earth exposed by God; and more! Especially, God challenges Job with the question for modern scientists who think they know better: Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? and with the question for modern brothers and sisters who doubt the plain truth of Scripture: who laid the earth's cornerstone, and on what?

Please consider Brother Griffith's words about Jeremiah 31:37 before you jump to any conclusions about rejecting the Bible doctrine of the unmoveable earth. As he wrote in a letter to the Christadelphian Magazine in 1916, it's not “What can the scriptures be made to say?” but “What saith the scriptures?”

Bruce (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC) As Robert Bellarmine pointed out (see here), it was Solomon, the man wiser than all others because of God's blessing, who was given the task of describing in Scripture how the sun moves in the sky. See at Ecclesiastes 1:5. Bellarmine also gave a simple and convincing scientific proof of his own to those who say that Solomon was only saying what seems to be true: if you're in a boat moving away from a beach, it seems as though the beach is moving, but we know that it is an illusion and correct it in our minds, because we can feel the boat moving beneath our feet — but when we see the sun moving, we know that it isn't an illusion because we can feel that the earth is not moving beneath our feet. Scientists are not perfect, and if they contradict what the Bible clearly says, they are wrong.

Prue (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the biblical understanding of the world includes an earth with literal foundations that does not move. The bible is wrong on this point of fact. While it may be true to say that the bible teaches that the earth does not move, I dispute that this is an important teaching of the bible. (Footnote/aside: my hesitation to sign off on this PQRC was this use of the word “teaches”.)

Many aspects of the cosmology common to the Ancient Near East (earth with literal foundations, solid firmament in the sky, waters above and waters below, sun not the source of light, etc.) were clearly believed by people of the Bible. The language used by the authors of Biblical texts reflects this understanding of the world, and sometimes also spiritual significance is attached to these ancient beliefs about the world.

If we admit that the bible is wrong on this point of fact, what should our response be? Here are several options, not mutually exclusive:

• Interpret allegorically (many early Christians used allegory to interpret difficult passages such as the offering of Isaac)
• Interpret the “original” meaning of texts creatively, allowing the text to have many and layered meanings as in Jewish tradition, talking and debating within community about what these texts mean for us now. (For example, we could copy what the psalmist does and creatively attach spiritual significance to our own appreciation of the way the world is.)
• Show sensitivity to the original meaning of the text and look for spiritual meaning within this context, asking the question, what is revealed about God?

A non-sequitur would be to conclude that if the bible is wrong on simple points of fact then it cannot be trusted as a source of moral truth.

Other comments

“Clearly states” rings alarm bells for me: beware, high danger of cultural bias. It is extremely difficult to read and understand ancient texts as they would have been originally understood. It also sounds very objective, insensitive to the fact that any reading and interpretation of scripture is done through a lens of time and translation and place and experience and gender and race and ...

Any interpretation of scripture is subjective: we need to be collectively determining what are the important teachings of the bible to be lived out in our community and as individual believers, admitting we may be wrong, but trying to do our best.

Comment by Bruce (as himself, not as a Geocentrist) — Yes, "clearly states", "teaches" and other aspects of the hectoring rhetoric were my imitation of the communication style of some of our modern literalists, and also of Bellarmine himself. I thought I'd phrased the PQRC neutrally, though: "some believe it teaches etc" is literally true even now in some cases.

Extra discussion

Paul 19 July 2018

A statement of the facts

Not withstanding the analysis by Prue and Bruce, I think we should consider each passage with this theme individually. Considering from the “Summary of solutions offered”, and point “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.”

I would add an additional solution:

Each passage should be considered in context and based on the language usage. Where a passage is symbolic in nature then a literal interpretation should not be forcefully applied.

Identification of issues involved

In relation to Psalm 104:5 the context is symbolic:

v1 God is clothed with splendour and majesty

v2 God is covered with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent

v3 God lays the beams of his chambers on the waters and makes the clouds his chariot and he rides on the wings of the wind

v4 God makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire

v6 God covered the earth with the deep as with a garment and the waters stood above the mountains.

This is all symbolic language and therefore v5 should not be considered as literal.

Comment by Bruce (as himself, not as a Geocentrist): If it's "symbolic", what is the symbol, and what is it symbolic of?

v1 It's not symbolic to describe God as "splendid" or "majestic"; "clothed with" is a metaphor but not a symbol.

v2 "covered with light" is parallel with "splendid" and "covered with" is the same metaphor as "clothed with". The heavens (shamayim) are literal; unfurling them might be a metaphor; "like a tent" is simile; but there's no clear symbolism. We can read them symbolically of course, as Paul read two mountains, but that doesn't eliminate the primary meaning.

v3 The beams of the heavenly palace are literal — archaeologists have discovered depictions of them. God riding through the heavens is metaphorical, expressive of his power and dominion, at least as I read it — see Appropriation of ANE mythology. If it's symbolic (of what? perhaps of the superiority of Yahweh to all the idol-gods) it still doesn't eliminate its primary meaning as high-register poetical language. Compare the universal language of Amos ch. 9.

v4 Wind and fire are both literal, metaphorically called messengers and ministers. We can find symbolic meanings in addition to this primary meaning.

v5 is the one we're talking about: literal earth, apparently on literal foundations — or so it was understood up until the time of Copernicus.

v6 literal water, literal mountains, literal flood. (Flood of some sort, perhaps local but described in universal language in Genesis.)

In the following verses there are many reasons to see the Psalm as a hymn to the literal creation, with many references to literal details, as I listed above.

The way to understand this is as Prue indicated above: the Bible is written in the language of its times, and expresses the geographical understanding of its times. — BP

Paul 11 August 2018 — I am corrected. Rather than the use of the word "symbolic" I should have said "poetic" and the Psalmist extensively uses metaphor and simile. But by the use of such poetic language would tend to make a precise interpretation of the passage more imprecise.

Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions

I agree with Prue that “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.” It is so easy to automatically apply our personal or Christadelphian bias to scripture. But interpretation must be based on the passage under focus and must consider the context and the language that is used. It is not appropriate to apply a general principle to all passages that appear to be on a similar theme; especially where some of the passages are clearly symbolic. This is a principle for interpretation even when some passages may also have a literal aspect from which spiritual lessons may be derived. Secondary aspects should not override the primary aspects for the interpretation of a passage.

Another passage on a similar theme that encourages me to consider each passage individually is:

ESV Psalm 24:1-2 (A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2 for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.)

Comment by Bruce Are you thinking that if the earth is floating on the primeval ocean it should be bobbing around like a cork? See above!

Such a passage would appear to challenge the view that the earth is fixed and unmoveable (Psalm 104:5) whilst the earth is founded upon the "seas" and "rivers" yet the dictionary meaning of the word used for the earth's immovability in Psalm 104:5 is "to totter, shake, slip" (Strongs 04131).

Comment by Bruce — I think you've dropped a minus sign there. (Cf. English indestructible comes from the root destroy.) The clear meaning is that God has set the earth on foundations so that it can't be moved. — BP

Based on Psalm 104:5 then I see no issue in reconciling the Bible and science.

Comment by Bruce — Well at least there's no problem reconciling the Bible and ancient science (if we can use that term), because the Bible is an ancient book; but we can't reconcile it to both ancient and modern science, because they're different. The world-knowledge in the Bible is ancient; the truths are eternal. — BP

Recommendations

I would add an additional solution to the 3 already proposed:

Each passage should be considered in context and based on the language usage. Where a passage is symbolic in nature then a literal interpretation should not be forcefully applied.

Comment by Bruce — Agree in general; but don't agree that it is relevant to Psalm 104, which is a hymn to the Creator that celebrates literal details of the actual creation. — BP

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, says Bruce —

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. (Ecclesiastes 1:5) — BP

— Paul (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Editors' endorsement that enough discussion has been had for the present purpose.

We agree that this matter has been adequately discussed and can proceed to decision-making.
Paul	BP	~	~	~

Our conclusion(s)

Conclusions at Conclusions:PQRC 2.