Paul of Eugene
New Member
Here are the main proof texts used for the purpose of asserting it is the sun that moves and not the earth:
Josh 10:12-13
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
NASU
Eccl 1:5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
NASU
Ps 19:1-6
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
NASU
These were used historically by Martin Luther and others as the science of astronomy began to assert the evidence from science instead of the literal interpretation of scripture.
Today we know these verses are not meant to be interpreted literally. But how do we know that?
I submit there is only one way we really know they are not meant to be interpreted as asserting that it is literally the sun that moves and the earth that stands still (instead of rotating and moving around the sun, at that) and the way we know that is because the science of astronomy has come to be so accepted in our minds and hearts that we simply and automatically re-intepret these verses in a non-literal fashion.
But it was not always so. Before the science had come to be so well accepted, all the clerics, protestan and catholic and baptist and whatever, opposed the science. That's the testimony of history.
So one would suppose that an educated person, even a christian educated person, would realize that the principle of accepting the literal interpretation of scripture against the evidence of science is simply not a valid arguing point, since the method failed the church so miserably when it was tried that time. Why repeat history?
Therefore the argument turns on the scientific evidence.
Josh 10:12-13
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
NASU
Eccl 1:5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
NASU
Ps 19:1-6
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
NASU
These were used historically by Martin Luther and others as the science of astronomy began to assert the evidence from science instead of the literal interpretation of scripture.
Today we know these verses are not meant to be interpreted literally. But how do we know that?
I submit there is only one way we really know they are not meant to be interpreted as asserting that it is literally the sun that moves and the earth that stands still (instead of rotating and moving around the sun, at that) and the way we know that is because the science of astronomy has come to be so accepted in our minds and hearts that we simply and automatically re-intepret these verses in a non-literal fashion.
But it was not always so. Before the science had come to be so well accepted, all the clerics, protestan and catholic and baptist and whatever, opposed the science. That's the testimony of history.
So one would suppose that an educated person, even a christian educated person, would realize that the principle of accepting the literal interpretation of scripture against the evidence of science is simply not a valid arguing point, since the method failed the church so miserably when it was tried that time. Why repeat history?
Therefore the argument turns on the scientific evidence.
