Biblical Cosmology - It's Incorrect

[cinper]

In reading the latest issue of Greg Koukl's Solid Ground ("In the current rift between science and religion..."), I find myself sympathetic with Van Till's view that "religion tells us how to get to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." Let me explain why.

If we rely on the Bible to tell us of our cosmology, then we can quickly conclude that the Bible is in error. This has only been known for certain within the past 400 years or so, but the Bible's cosmology is incorrect nonetheless.

Take, for example, the geocentric view of the universe (the Earth is at the center of all things).

The whole cosmological model of the first chapter of Genesis suggests the long-held belief that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting in spherical fashion. The fact that the sun and moon are delineated as being created after the Earth suggests a gross misunderstanding of the nature of these bodies. There are verses in Chronicles and Psalms that mention the Earth standing firm on its foundations (I Chronicles 16:30; Psalms 93:1;96:10;104:5) and there is a passage in Joshua that has him commanding the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13) implying, of course, that it was the sun which rotated around the Earth. A surface reading of Scripture seems to place the Earth at the center of everything, and proposes that the Earth is indeed flat (references to "the four corners of the Earth" in Isaiah 11:12, for example). This is what the Christian church believed (and everyone else, surely) for thousands of years. In the Christian church's case, they believed this for at least 1500 years. It is plain that the Earth has no foundation in the builder's sense, and the shape of the Earth is not in question. The Bible, literally, says the Earth is little more than 6000 years old. This is plainly ridiculous.

Polish astronomer Copernicus, in the 16th century (Luther's time), put forth the heliocentric view of the Universe (the Sun was at the center). Galileo, in 1602, expanded upon this theory and was roundly excommunicated. He was finally reinstated in the late 20th Century to the Church's good graces.

The following quote of Luther's is taken from Luther's Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Luther had opinions. Luther was wrong. The Church thought the Earth was central to the Universe. The Church was dead wrong for over 1500 years.

Now, if Luther appealed to the Bible for science, and was wrong, how do we today propose to keep commiting the same mistake? I do not know how I can defend what I see to be an incorrect Biblical cosmology. This puts a whole new spin on the phrases "the Word of God" and "Biblical inerrancy."

I am at a loss to get over this hurdle.

Thank you.

Perry Shields

[infide]

In reading the latest issue of Greg Koukl's Solid Ground ("In the current rift between science and religion..."), I find myself sympathetic with Van Till's view that "religion tells us how to get to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." Let me explain why.

If we rely on the Bible to tell us of our cosmology, then we can quickly conclude that the Bible is in error. This has only been known for certain within the past 400 years or so, but the Bible's cosmology is incorrect nonetheless.

Take, for example, the geocentric view of the universe (the Earth is at the center of all things).

The whole cosmological model of the first chapter of Genesis suggests the long-held belief that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, with the sun, moon, and stars orbiting in spherical fashion. The fact that the sun and moon are delineated as being created after the Earth suggests a gross misunderstanding of the nature of these bodies. There are verses in Chronicles and Psalms that mention the Earth standing firm on its foundations (I Chronicles 16:30; Psalms 93:1;96:10;104:5) and there is a passage in Joshua that has him commanding the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13) implying, of course, that it was the sun which rotated around the Earth. A surface reading of Scripture seems to place the Earth at the center of everything, and proposes that the Earth is indeed flat (references to "the four corners of the Earth" in Isaiah 11:12, for example). This is what the Christian church believed (and everyone else, surely) for thousands of years. In the Christian church's case, they believed this for at least 1500 years. It is plain that the Earth has no foundation in the builder's sense, and the shape of the Earth is not in question. The Bible, literally, says the Earth is little more than 6000 years old. This is plainly ridiculous.

Polish astronomer Copernicus, in the 16th century (Luther's time), put forth the heliocentric view of the Universe (the Sun was at the center). Galileo, in 1602, expanded upon this theory and was roundly excommunicated. He was finally reinstated in the late 20th Century to the Church's good graces.

The following quote of Luther's is taken from Luther's Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Luther had opinions. Luther was wrong. The Church thought the Earth was central to the Universe. The Church was dead wrong for over 1500 years.

Now, if Luther appealed to the Bible for science, and was wrong, how do we today propose to keep commiting the same mistake? I do not know how I can defend what I see to be an incorrect Biblical cosmology. This puts a whole new spin on the phrases "the Word of God" and "Biblical inerrancy."

I am at a loss to get over this hurdle.

Thank you.

Perry Shields

Actually, i dont think it is even possible to affirm that the Earth is not the center of the UNIVERSE considering Relativity. That is, it is clear that in the Solar System the earth is orbiting the sun and rotating, right? But if you take the earth as your inertial frame, then the earth is really at rest and the Universe is moving around it. And so, technically, the earth still could be the center of the entire Universe.

However, it is clear that the Biblical authors had a particular view of the Universe, Solar System, and even Earth which was altogether incorrect (flood gates and water above the atmosphere instead of just space, etc), and so what do we do with that? In my mind, nothing. You see, God had to use the Biblical authors as they were with their worldviews (however faulty). He couldnt give them Omniscience in order to write the Scriptures. Thus, it seems to me that the Scriptures are authoritative/inerrant only in those things which it is intended to express. The Scriptures are not a textbook in Cosmology. They arent a textbook in systematic theology either, for that matter.

hope that helps.
peace.

[cinper]

Your answer is the belief I have held for years...but what stops me cold now is the idea of "inerrancy." If the writers' worldview was in error (and I understand, they were not capable of understanding it any other way at the time), then the information itself is wrong, and that suggests Biblical fallibility.

About your term "only in those things which it is intended to express," how do we then know what those things are? Where do Adam and Eve fit in? Is everything that sounds scientifically dubious dismissable?

Thanks again.

[learning]

Ask God to show you what's important, how to interpret it and go from there. Trust Him to lead you. The Bible is the message from God, but it is not God.

[infide]

cinper,

wierd, i can only see your first paragraph in the thread but now i see the whole thing.

Your answer is the belief I have held for years...but what stops me cold now is the idea of "inerrancy." If the writers' worldview was in error (and I understand, they were not capable of understanding it any other way at the time), then the information itself is wrong, and that suggests Biblical fallibility.

well, what other option do we have? We cannot dogmatically insist that the Bible is right and the plainly-correct modern view of the Universe is wrong. It seems there are some things which are not really related to God and spirituality which are more about their own beliefs/culture which they happenned to be wrong about. I cant really think of why this would be objectionable unless one is a naive-literalist (which, admittedly is quite common in evangelical Christianity), or they believe in a direct-dictation type model of Biblical inspiration. Otherwise, we really shouldnt expect their cosmology to be correct.

About your term "only in those things which it is intended to express," how do we then know what those things are?

I think we need to be spiritual, intellectual, rational, and humble. We should ask ourselves as we are interpreting if it is reasonable to interpret a particular passage in a certain way if there are other sources of knowledge which deny that interpretation. I think we should start with the Biblical source and give it the benefit of the doubt.

We also need to consider the content - what does the passage intend to express? When it says that God placed the waters above the firmament - is that intended to express a historical event? Or is it expressing that God created all things, and given we believe in a firmament and waters above them, He must have created it.

Admittedly, this requires caution and preceding with humility. but this is what needs to be done.

Where do Adam and Eve fit in?

I am not sure about this. It is possible they are historical figures. I find it hard to believe that humans have been around for more than say 15000 years. Granted, this does go against common evolutionary theory, but thats okay, because evolution as a mechanism for the origin of life is irrational and should be rejected.

the reason i say that humanity is rather new is because of historical records. What makes humans human is that they have language and mathematics and societies. But languages go back only like 12000 years, and mathematics only about that far back, and societies. i cant think of why this would be the case, except that humanity is new to this planet. Does that mean the earth is only thousands of years old? nope.

Is everything that sounds scientifically dubious dismissable?

not dismissable, no. were talking about the cultural context from which the Scripture passage comes. Like with the language being different we need to interpret these things into what they would MEAN in a well-reasoned modern Christian worldview.

And on the other hand, anything scientific that is dubious in terms of naturalism, should be dismissed as well.

Thanks again.

no problem, brother.
peace.