|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/29/2008 2:26:34 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
It would be difficult to maintain that a literal interpretation of the Bible supports a moving earth:
quote:
1Ch 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
in addition to various references to the foundations, cornerstone and pillars of the world.
For what reason, or on what basis, do Christians reject (assuming you do) a fixed-earth interpretation of these passages?
It is not tradition, for the early fathers generally, maybe universally, supported the geocentric view.
Is it possible that the discoveries of science have become well enough accepted that scientific findings have subordinated a literal reading of these passages?
Or is there some other reason for dismissing the literal interpretation?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/29/2008 11:03:32 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3133
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
AnswersinGenesis has an excellent search engine for its site. This article on Geocentrism and Creation was the first one listed from searching "geocentrism psalm". You really should be able to do your own research, es.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/29/2008 11:58:18 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
AnswersinGenesis has an excellent search engine for its site. This article on Geocentrism and Creation was the first one listed from searching "geocentrism psalm". You really should be able to do your own research, es.
Excellent. That page states that "Alas, there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists." And it affirms that Augustine and Aquinas were just plain wrong. Mostly the page dissects some guy named Bouw, of whom I have never heard. I'm more interested in Augustine, Aquinas and the rest of the church fathers. Whatever errors Bouw makes, the church fathers came to the same conclusion. And the page has a long section on scientific issues, confirming my view that scientific evidence can inform biblical intepretation.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 6:56:26 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Excellent. That page states that "Alas, there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists." And it affirms that Augustine and Aquinas were just plain wrong. Mostly the page dissects some guy named Bouw, of whom I have never heard. I'm more interested in Augustine, Aquinas and the rest of the church fathers. Whatever errors Bouw makes, the church fathers came to the same conclusion. And the page has a long section on scientific issues, confirming my view that scientific evidence can inform biblical intepretation.
Exactly. The question is not really "what the Bible teaches" since Christians have long since made peace with Copernicus, Galileo, et al and easily interpret the relevant passages in conformity with the scientific evidence regarding the structure of the solar system and the motion of the earth.
The question is really"how is the Bible interpreted" i.e with or without scientifically derived knowledge about the created world.
Can any case be made that one could come to a non-geocentric interpretation of the relevant biblical passages without the scientific input? Or is the scientific input needed to even raise the question?
We know some ancient Greeks raise the possibility of a sun-centered cosmos, though this was a minority voice. Clearly though, they did not take this idea from the bible.
Is there any example of a pre-Copernican Christian (or Jew) who understood, on the basis of scripture alone, that the earth orbits the sun and that "sunrise" and "sunset" refer to apparent, not actual motion?
If scientifically derived knowledge of creation is needed to consider that the biblical passages do not mean what they appear to mean literally, then the idea that one must not use such knowledge of creation to inform one's understanding of scripture goes by the board.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 7:59:51 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3133
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
You all keep basking in the ignorance of your incorrect definition of "literal". I plan to read God's word the way it was written.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 9:02:32 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drmarkquote:
You all keep basking in the ignorance of your incorrect definition of "literal".
Give them a break doc. Without such nonsense they would have no argument.
After all how many Christians on this board will deny that Jesus literally existed?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 9:37:36 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
You all keep basking in the ignorance of your incorrect definition of "literal". I plan to read God's word the way it was written.
I see, so the 'literal reading' is the way it was written. How do you determine that way?
In particular, how did you determine that the way it was written indicates that the Earth's foundations and pillars are mere figures of speech? Was this determined with reference only to the text itself?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 10:40:43 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Give them a break doc. Without such nonsense they would have no argument.
After all how many Christians on this board will deny that Jesus literally existed?
My, my. Trying to change the subject already, are we?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 11:37:03 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7774
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Again, I am not sure of the logic of the atheists who are posting here. Basically there are a few choices here:
1. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena, and is definitively wrong in it's view of them; 'interpretation' is irrelevant.
2. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena correctly, but our interpretation of those references is or has been wrong. Requires knowing what interpretation was intended.
3. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena, appears to be wrong, but in actually our understanding of those phenomena are wrong.
The argument that atheists keep making recently, in this thread and in the RE: CONSPIRACY!!! thread is #2; that Christians are wrongly interpreting the Bible.
The problem with that argument is that atheists summarily reject the major premise of the Bible, namely that God exists and has been active in human and natural history. Because that is there belief, the #1 argument is almost certainly true, and if that is the case, the number #2 argument is irrelevant. So why they insist on making an irrelevant argument is suspect. Interestingly, an atheist here explained why they make such an argument:
quote:
Because biblical interpretation is being used as an excuse to water down science education which is, or should be, important to everyone. When useful, well supported, and well received theories are thrown out of science class for no other reason than a conflict with a group's religious convictions based on biblical interpretation what are we supposed to do? Serve up scientific evidence that will be ignored on the basis of being a fallible human interpretation. Not to mention the enjoyment of pointing out hypocrisy.
This is very similar to the point Dawkins openly makes in expelled, that certain atheists support certain religious viewpoints not because they consider those viewpoints valid, but because it advances a particular agenda; in short, it's deception.
So, bringing this back to the OP; it may be that certain passages in Scripture have been badly misinterpreted, like those concerning the movement of the earth through space; the fact that they were doesn't itself mean that this is true of every current interpretation of Scripture, or that this makes the argument for design itself any weaker.
Indeed, the solution to what happened with Galileo and the 'Church's' view of the matter was the Reformation; namely that views of Scripture should not be dictated by a single person or groups of persons who can then impose their views on others through penalty of law - and of course, having achieved that result, we now have atheists who would do the same with their views of science.
The battle for intellectual freedom goes on.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 12:17:26 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The problem with that argument is that atheists summarily reject the major premise of the Bible, namely that God exists and has been active in human and natural history.
Because that is there belief, the #1 argument is almost certainly true, and if that is the case, the number #2 argument is irrelevant. So why they insist on making an irrelevant argument is suspect. Interestingly, an atheist here explained why they make such an argument:
Why do you think this is a problem? It's called accepting a premise for the sake of an argument. In the context of these discussions the premise may be that the Bible is divinely inspired, and God is the creator. Then you build on the premise to figure out what the end results are for different interpretations of biblical texts. You don't have to be religious to understand it.
I think its been demonstrated time and time again, accepting literal interpretation of creation leads one inescapably to the notion that God is deceitful, either by His inspired word, or in his created works.
The atheist in effect, is giving literalists all the rope they need to hang themselves, and there are nooses and broken necks all over these types of threads;P
< Message edited by drj11 -- 5/30/2008 12:24:07 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 12:26:11 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7774
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why do you think this is a problem? It's called accepting a premise for the sake of an argument. In the context of these discussions the premise may be that the Bible is divinely inspired, and God is the creator. Then you build on the premise to figure out what the end results are for different interpretations of biblical texts. You don't have to be religious to understand it.
I think its been demonstrated time and time again, accepting literal interpretation of creation leads one inescapably to the notion that God is deceitful, either by His inspired word, or in his created works.
The atheist in effect, is giving literalists all the rope they need to hang themselves, and there are nooses and broken necks all over these types of threads
Well, as I pointed out earlier, it is the rhetorical equivalent of simultaneously arguing that unicorns don’t exist and that they are always pink; they are inherently contradictory notions, and thus the atheist doesn’t even get to start weaving the rope before he has fallen in his own logical pit.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 12:37:45 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, I am not sure of the logic of the atheists who are posting here.
We are pointing out the hypocrisy of biblical literalists. They reject evolutionary science because it conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis but they accept heliocentrism even though it conflicts with a literal reading of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 1:09:52 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7774
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
We are pointing out the hypocrisy of biblical literalists. They reject evolutionary science because it conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis but they accept heliocentrism even though it conflicts with a literal reading of scripture.
This of course is the problem; you are simply positing another (insincere) interpretation; there is however no rational baiss to accept your interpretation any more than those positied by creationists, and as it is based on wholly specious motives, by the admission of atheists, there is no reason not to consider it wholly suspect.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 1:24:44 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, I am not sure of the logic of the atheists who are posting here.
I'm simply playing God's Advocate.
Besides, for the most part, I'm trying to elicit from forum participants what their interpretation is. I've been told that my understanding of a literal interpretation is bogus and ignorant, so I've invited people to explain themselves in their own words.
quote:
...of course, having achieved that result, we now have atheists who would do the same with their views of science.
It's not the atheists who are doing this, it is the scientists and science-friendlies. For instance, Gluadys appears to be in accord with my views on science. The many theistic biologists who accept evolution are in accord with my views on science. You yourself appear to be in accord with my views of science as far as YE vs. OE is concerned. You accept more of the facts of biological science than I'm likely to ever learn.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 1:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
This of course is the problem; you are simply positing another (insincere) interpretation; there is however no rational baiss to accept your interpretation any more than those positied by creationists, and as it is based on wholly specious motives, by the admission of atheists, there is no reason not to consider it wholly suspect.
It is not me who is positing an interpretation. The church had a long tradition of interpretting specific verses in a very literal sense and this lead to geocentrist claims. The Bible states quite clearly (as clearly as it states the Universe is young and created in 6 days) that the Earth does not move, and yet it does. If YEC is based solely on a literal Bible then so is geocentrism.
I don't think I have to list names, but there are several posters here who take a literal interpretation of scripture over any possible interpretation of reality. Heliocentrism is as contradictory to a literal reading of scripture as evolution and an old universe are.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 1:36:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
there is no reason not to consider it wholly suspect.
Is it less suspect when gluadys makes the same points and asks the same questions? Does its merit improve?
Me and my specious motives can sit quietly in this noxious well and patiently wait for answers to gluadys' questions.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/30/2008 6:21:53 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, I am not sure of the logic of the atheists who are posting here. Basically there are a few choices here:
1. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena, and is definitively wrong in it's view of them; 'interpretation' is irrelevant.
2. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena correctly, but our interpretation of those references is or has been wrong. Requires knowing what interpretation was intended.
3. The Bible refers to certain natural phenomena, appears to be wrong, but in actually our understanding of those phenomena are wrong.
The main point is that the Church changed its interpretation of the immobile earth/mobile sun passages and did so solely on the basis of reason, especially in regard to the new information made available through the use of the newly-invented telescope. The early Protestant reaction was as negative to this idea as the Catholic reaction was, but made the shift earlier than the Catholic church which did not officially recognize the Copernican system until the 19th century.
The reasoning is quite clear in the debates of the time. The plain sense of scripture said the sun moved, not the earth, and that is how the Church had always understood it. Not only the Ptolemaic system, but the earlier ANE system understood the earth to be immobile.
Yet even Cardinal Bellamine, chief prosecutor of Galileo, while adamantly defending this view, also said, that if the contrary were proven beyond doubt, then it should be understood that scripture did not teach --- and had never taught --- that the earth was immobile.
In this regard he was following in the footsteps of earlier Christian theologians who agreed that when scripture appeared to say what was contrary to sense and reason, then the interpretation of scripture should be informed by sense and reason, lest the sacred scripture be brought into disrepute.
This is also the tradition invoked by evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists). It brings scripture into disrepute to force an interpretation that goes against all the evidence that supports modern science.
What did the original writer intend? No doubt, the plain sense of what is written: that the earth is set on foundations, the heavens held up by pillars, that water fills all space below the earth and above the firmament, and that the heavenly bodies move through the heavens while the earth remains immobile. Why would the original writer, given his earth-bound technologically unassisted perspective conceive anything else? It took a significant feat of reasoning to even come to the conclusion that the earth is a sphere. And that perspective, though accepted by the Church, did not make it into scripture.
But while this understanding of the structure of the cosmos informs the scriptures, does it follow that the writers intended to teach this as science?
When we check out the relevant scriptures we see that the focus in most cases is to praise the Creator by reference to the creation. In other instances, the cosmological references are quite incidental. So we can advance the idea that while the original writers supposed themselves in all sincerity, to be describing an actual cosmological structure, they were not doing so as teachers of doctrine. The teaching is that God is Creator and glorified in creation, whatever the structure of the cosmos is.
So, the Church found itself able to change its interpretation of these passages, and has been so successful that most modern readers don't even notice the original immobile earth perspective. For example, one Psalm speaks of the earth "abiding" forever. I always took for granted that simply meant that the earth existed through all time. In short, I took it for a temporal reference, not a positional reference. It was not until I learned more about language and the history of language, that I found out the original meaning of "abide" and probably the meaning intended by the KJV translators was "to rest still in one place; to dwell in one place" Which is why our home is also called our abode and a person without one is said to have "no fixed abode". But the earth, the Psalmist is saying, does have a fixed abode, and there is abides.
Yet we have no difficulty assigning all of the paraphernalia of the ANE cosmos to "figurative language" or "the language of appearance". In fact, we sometimes even see the opposite error, namely that scripture actually teaches the cosmology we are familiar with.
What the "geocentric" controversy shows is that the Church did take the testimony of creation, as revealed by science, seriously and allowed that information to revamp the way it understood scripture.
Most of the Church has done the same on such issues as the age of the earth, the Big Band, evolution and common descent.
Fundamentalists have chosen to break with a tradition upheld in the Church since at least the second century, deny the gifts of sense and reason God has endowed them with, not to mention the clear testimony of the physical creation itself, in order to hold to a narrowly "literal" interpretation of Genesis. (They clearly don't hold to a literal interpretation anywhere else that it would disagree with their own common sense.)
So to get back to your points.
1. Yes the bible is clearly wrong in some of its presentations of nature--if we hold to the probable understanding of the biblical writer. The question is, does it matter? Why should we expect a writer who knows nothing other than the ANE cosmos to use any other frame of reference? Furthermore, if we allow that the authority of the bible is not impaired by the culture-bound perspective of the author on scientific matters, maybe we should look at what else in the bible is also culture-bound and interpret accordingly.
2. This is the out taken by those who think the bible must be timeless in its references. I think it shows disrespect to the original authors. The Church's pre-Copernican interpretation of the immobile earth was not incorrect. They understood the author because they shared the author's perspective. But the Church also had the wisdom to re-interpret the same passages in light of new and more accurate knowledge of the creation.
3. This is only appropriate when a theory is new and unvalidated. Scientists do have a responsibility to check and re-check their findings, to have their methods and conclusions peer-reviewed, to allow their ideas to be challenged, questioned and if possible falsified. But to continue to claim that we have it all wrong after every scientific objection has been overcome is simply perverse. If the only grounds on which we can deny the current scientific model is to also deny the faithfulness of God in creation (including our own capacities of sense and reason), we are at best playing the ostrich in the sand and at worst embracing heresy. We are not defending the truth and authority of the bible, but only our own egotism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 8:54:55 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3133
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I see, so the 'literal reading' is the way it was written. How do you determine that way? Please read Articles VII, X, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Then take this discussion to The Bible forum where it rightly belongs!
quote:
We are pointing out the hypocrisy of biblical literalists. quote:
It is not me who is positing an interpretation. You want to call me a "hypocrite" while you wash your hands of any interpretative interest in myths and fairy tales?! My, my, Method, that truly is rich irony!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 9:31:56 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Please read Articles VII, X, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.
quote:
Article VII
WE AFFIRM that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed.
WE DENY that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.
The Affirmation here is directed at those who claim a "double" or "deeper" meaning to Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to those who find multiple and pliable meanings. What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers. This does not imply that further revelation on the subject cannot help one come to a fuller understanding, but simply that the meaning given in a text is not changed because additional truth is revealed subsequently.
Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers.
The Denial adds the clarification that simply because Scripture has one meaning does not imply that its messages cannot be applied to a variety of individuals or situations. While the interpretation is one, the applications can be many.
Two things strike me about this article. First, exactly what does it mean to say there is no "double" or "deeper" meaning to scripture, a meaning other than that expressed by the authors.
On one hand this would quite properly disallow such distortions of interpretation as invoking the phrase "stretched out the heavens" as a reference to the expansion of the universe. Clearly this was not a meaning the author intended to express.
On the other hand, did the author of Genesis intend that Sarah and Hagar be allegories of the Promise and the Law, as Paul says, or that the Deluge be a type of baptism as Peter says?
And what do we do with Matthew's idiosyncratic application of Israelite history personally to Jesus (e.g. "Out of Egypt I have called my son")?
A strict application of this article voids much NT interpretation of the OT.
Secondly, if we agree that "meaning is determined by the author" how can we avoid the obvious reality that the expressed meaning of the biblical author is that the earth is immobile and the sun moves across the sky? Therefore, scripture presents a cosmology that is contrary to reality as we understand it.
quote:
Then take this discussion to The Bible forum where it rightly belongs!
I would avoid that unless you want to turn the Bible Forum into a duplicate of the Science & Origins forum. This is the appropriate forum to discuss how biblical interpretation impacts on attitudes towards scientific discoveries related to the age of the earth, the evolution of humanity and related questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 10:53:40 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3133
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Then take this discussion to The Bible forum where it rightly belongs!
I would avoid that unless you want to turn the Bible Forum into a duplicate of the Science & Origins forum. I'll let the moderators decide where a discussion of hermeneutics should be held.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 11:51:45 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I see, so the 'literal reading' is the way it was written. How do you determine that way? Please read Articles VII, X, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.
"the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory"
"WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual."
The first allows the possibility of metaphor and allegory, but the second essentially takes it away, begging the question of how to determine whether a passage is factual or metaphorical/allegorical.
In particular, the foundations and pillars of the earth are presented as factual, and appear in historical events in which God sets them up. Does this influence your scientific views on the fixed-earth, drmark?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 5:04:35 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3133
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
In particular, the foundations and pillars of the earth are presented as factual, and appear in historical events in which God sets them up. Does this influence your scientific views on the fixed-earth, drmark? You know, I forget how silly it must appear for an agno-atheist to pretend s/he can properly interpret scripture! Look es, does the Bible you're using show both 1 Chron 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 to be part of original text that is in poetic form. Mine certainly does, so I know instantly that these passages must be viewed differently than historical narrative prose such as written in Genesis 1-11. What does poetry, metaphor, or hyperbole have to do with the factual, historical events of creation? There is NO fixed earth, by either scientific observation or proper Scriptural hermeneutics!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 5:54:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
In particular, the foundations and pillars of the earth are presented as factual, and appear in historical events in which God sets them up. Does this influence your scientific views on the fixed-earth, drmark? You know, I forget how silly it must appear for an agno-atheist to pretend s/he can properly interpret scripture! Look es, does the Bible you're using show both 1 Chron 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 to be part of original text that is in poetic form. Mine certainly does, so I know instantly that these passages must be viewed differently than historical narrative prose such as written in Genesis 1-11. What does poetry, metaphor, or hyperbole have to do with the factual, historical events of creation? There is NO fixed earth, by either scientific observation or proper Scriptural hermeneutics!
Well, it is not as if poetry cannot refer to fact, or perceived fact. As as girl, I learned the hymn, This is my Father's World, which contains the line "All nature sings and round me rings/the music of the spheres." It was much, much later that I learned the "spheres" in that phrase referred to the crystalline spheres of the Ptolemaic cosmos and that at one time, people had understood the line literally, not metaphorically. Meanwhile the poetry in a recently published hymnbook refers to "the glory of the galaxies" and to the earth's "journey round the burning sun". Does the fact that these phrases occur in poetry mean that the galaxies or earth's orbit are only metaphors and not factual?
Poetry does not exclude fact or perceived fact, and the images in poetry reflect what people actually know/believe about nature.
As for narrative, that too can be set into poetry, and history may also be set into poetry. So I expect the distinction you are making is not between poetry and narrative, but between poetry and prose.
What I have never heard yet, though I have often asked for it, is a set of characteristics which distinguish prose narrative recounting history from a prose narrative account of events which are not historical. It is easy to see that Genesis 1-11 is prose. But apart from your assumptions, what makes it history? Not the fact that it is narrative, since narrative simply means telling a story, whether or not it is real-life or fictional. Nor that it is prose, since we have many examples of prose fiction.
So something beyond it being narrative or even prose narrative is needed to identify it as history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 6:08:20 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltesquote:
It would be difficult to maintain that a literal interpretation of the Bible supports a moving earth:
Either your understanding of “literalist” is totally screwball or meteorologists all believe in geocentricism.
Do you suppose meteorologists all believe in geocentricism? I think not.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 5/31/2008 8:23:14 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltesquote:
It would be difficult to maintain that a literal interpretation of the Bible supports a moving earth:
Either your understanding of “literalist” is totally screwball or meteorologists all believe in geocentricism.
Do you suppose meteorologists all believe in geocentricism? I think not.
What is a non-screwball understanding of "literalist"?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
