The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[Charles]

That is, of course, in no way analogous to this specific topic or the arguments I have presented throughout this thread.

But nice troll attempt.

You seriously fail to see that you are reasoning along exactly those lines? You claim: "But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error." Luther claimed: "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."

So, in both cases, evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted according to what you already "know" to be true. And it is given beforehand in both cases that the Bible is the truth.

Let me guess you will not be able to point out any serious differences between your thinking and Luthers' line of reasoning in this case. If you can, let us know. And personal attacks will not help you.

[Mountain Man]

You seriously fail to see that you are reasoning along exactly those lines?

You seriously fail to see that I'm not?

Here is a selection of my previous posts, for your edification...

It's possible it was a series of localized floods. The point is, we only know what Noah and his family witnessed.

We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses.

I'm willing to accept that the flood may have happened much further in the past than "young earth" creationists believe, and that the evidence may be "lost", but I can't accept that the flood never happened at all.

I'm of the mind that we can accept the stories in the Bible as wholly trustworthy and reliable even if man, with his limited knowledge and understanding, can't confirm them. Which is to say that I can accept the account of Noah's flood as true even if it supposedly contradicts science. After all, "science" tells us that it's impossible that Jesus could have risen from the dead, and yet the resurrection is the central truth of my world view.

...Note that I am not dismissing the value of science, only that we should be wary when it starts telling us that something in the Bible couldn't have happened.

As any honest and reasonable person can see, Martin Luther's statement is in no way analogous to this topic or the arguments I've presented. At no point have I said or implied that the "evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted". What I have suggested is that the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.

I suggest trolling somewhere else, because this one got away.

[Charles]

You seriously fail to see that I'm not?

Here is a selection of my previous posts, for your edification...

As any honest and reasonable person can see, Martin Luther's statement is in no way analogous to this topic or the arguments I've presented. At no point have I said or implied that the "evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted". What I have suggested is that the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.

And your "open minded" investigator is driven not by the though or idea that "we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true,". That is what you wrote. So that is how open minded he is. And it goes on, because here it what goes for the "open minded" investigator. His "knowledge": "leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error."

So what your trying to promote is the idea of an "open minded" investigator who knows the truth beforehand and interprets all the evidence in such a way that it will not contradict the conclusion he had come up with before he investigated.

All your quotes do is to make it completely evident that your conclusion is given beforehand and thus you twist and turn "evidence" in order for it to fit with what you think you know.

[Mountain Man]

No where did I say that an open minded investigator should assume the conclusion. What I said is that "the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible."

[Charles]

No where did I say that an open minded investigator should assume the conclusion. What I said is that "the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible."

So you admit you were not open minded when you said the following:

But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.

Either you admit that or you are reasoning along the same lines that Luther did.

[Mountain Man]

...you said the following...

A quote you keep plucking out of context while ignoring everything else I've said in this thread.

That there is evidence suggesting massive but localized floods in Earth's history does not in and of itself disprove the possibility of a global flood as described in the Bible. But I also accept the possibility that the flood of Noah could have been a massive localized flood that wiped out an early human population that had yet to widely disperse. What I will not accept, based on the proven trustworthiness of scripture, is that the flood described in the Bible never happened at all.

Which is to say that neither my argument, nor the reasoning that supports it, is anything at all like the statement you quoted from Martin Luther in which he dismisses a scientific hypothesis simply because it seemed to disagree with his understanding of scripture. To that end, I rather think Martin Luther would have strongly objected to my assertion that "We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses."

[shunyadragon]

That there is evidence suggesting massive but localized floods in Earth's history does not in and of itself disprove the possibility of a global flood as described in the Bible.

No it 'does not disprove the possibility of a global flood as described in the Bible,' but the massive local floods are documented as occurring at different times, documented different causes, and only localized. It is those that believe in the literal Biblical flood that these floods are evidence of a world Biblical flood.

The evidence against a world flood is in the geologic record of the world in the sediments, sedimentary rocks, erosion processes, volcanics, and mountains of the world that show no evidence of a world flood. They geology of the world shows evidence of the gradual geologic processes over millions of years.

But I also accept the possibility that the flood of Noah could have been a massive localized flood that wiped out an early human population that had yet to widely disperse. What I will not accept, based on the proven trustworthiness of scripture, is that the flood described in the Bible never happened at all.

As far as what is recorded in the Bible the timing of the likely most massive Tigris Euphrates flood ever recorded, as described by the Sumerians is by far the most likely flood represented in the Bible. The only problem is that there are a long history of human cultures living all over the world before the Tigris Euphrates flood.

Which is to say that neither my argument, nor the reasoning that supports it, is anything at all like the statement you quoted from Martin Luther in which he dismisses a scientific hypothesis simply because it seemed to disagree with his understanding of scripture. To that end, I rather think Martin Luther would have strongly objected to my assertion that "We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses."[/QUOTE]

[Charles]

A quote you keep plucking out of context while ignoring everything else I've said in this thread.

You have made statements that are not completely consistent in this thread. Pointing the contradictions out is fair enough.

Which is to say that neither my argument, nor the reasoning that supports it, is anything at all like the statement you quoted from Martin Luther in which he dismisses a scientific hypothesis simply because it seemed to disagree with his understanding of scripture. To that end, I rather think Martin Luther would have strongly objected to my assertion that "We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses."

Again. Here is what you said:

But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.

It is very simple. Luther thought he knew the answer in advance (like you also think). Thus he had a certain idea on how evidence should be interpreted:

There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] 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 . . . 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.

In the last part you clearly see that he follows your line of reasoning: "it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error."

You write: "To that end, I rather think Martin Luther would have strongly objected to my assertion that "We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses.""

Interestingly he is not making or supporting scientific hypotheses in the quote. What he says is exactly what you are saying, namely that we know beforehand that the Bible is true and that if evidence shows differently there is something wrong with the interpretation.

Look at the following two statements you made:

"What I will not accept, based on the proven trustworthiness of scripture, is that the flood described in the Bible never happened at all."

"Which is to say that neither my argument, nor the reasoning that supports it, is anything at all like the statement you quoted from Martin Luther in which he dismisses a scientific hypothesis simply because it seemed to disagree with his understanding of scripture."

So you will not accept that the flood never happened at all (no matter the evidence) and yet you claim your argument is nothing like Luther's in which he dismisses a scientific hypothesis simply because it conflicts with his understanding of scripture. I don't think you need to analyze this for a very long time to see the contradiction.

At most you could have a different interpretation of the Bible but like Luther you rule out beforehand the possibility that anything that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible could be true.

[Mountain Man]

No it 'does not disprove the possibility of a global flood as described in the Bible...

Then we agree.

[Charles]

Then we agree.

Seemingly not on much though since shunya wrote a lot more.

[Adrift]

To be fair to Luther, almost no one believed Copernicus' ideas about heliocentrism at the time, including fellow scientists. It took the works of Galileo and Kepler for the field of astronomy, based not so much on the Bible, but on Greek Aristotelian and Ptolemaic thought, to move in another direction. Also, the quote in post #74 appears to be coming from the Joannes Aurifaber collection of Table Talks, which is typically considered less accurate than the Anton Lauterbach version.¹ Here's the quote from post #74,

There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] 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 . . . 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.

And here it is as cited from Lauterbach himself, who is the one who dined with the Luther's and gave us the quote,

There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

Note that Luther's quote doesn't start till about half way through the paragraph, and that Luther refers to the "astrologer" as a "fellow," rather than a "fool." (As an aside, there wasn't a distinction between an astrologer/astronomer in the 16th century, so that's the reason for that word use.)

Another important point, Lauterbach records this discussion happening on June 4th 1539. Copernicus' seminal book, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres where heliocentrism is expounded upon wasn't published until 1543, 4 years later. The likely reason that Luther and Lauterbach even knew about Copernicus (note, he's never mentioned by name) is because a young mathematician and Lutheran convert, Georg Rheticus, was enthralled by Copernicus' ideas, and left the University of Wittenberg (where Luther was chair of theology) to study with him in 1539. It was then Rheticus himself that pressured Copernicus into publishing De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, which Rheticus personally saw to right before Copernicus' death.

As early as 1540, we get word that Rheticus had already created an apologetic treatment that attempted to reconcile heliocentrism with scripture, and it was considered successful enough that In 1543, the year De revolutionibus was published, Bishop of Kulm, Tiedemann Giese, encouraged Rheticus to insert copies of it into De revolutionibus, stating that Rheticus had "skillfully vindicated that the motion of the Earth is not contrary to the Holy Scriptures." It's generally accepted that Rheticus finally published this treatise in full in 1651 calling it, Holy Scripture and the Motion of the Earth.

So, yeah, Luther was obviously grumpy about this new view that was rumbling in academia, which he was a member of. It was a view that he commented on before having had the opportunity to read a serious treatment on. It was a view that went against the mainstream scientific opinion of the day, and that other scientists heavily rejected and scorned till much much later. Its strongest proponent turned out to be a Lutheran! A Lutheran who thought it was wholly reconcilable with scripture.

Later, that great proponent of heliocentrism, Johannes Kepler, discusses the passage that Luther had in mind above, and pointed out its figurative/phenomenological language,

Source: Astronomia nova by Johannes Kepler

Joshua meant that the sun should be held back in its place in the middle of the sky for an entire day with respect to the sense of his eyes, since for other people during the same interval of time it would remain beneath the earth.

But thoughtless persons pay attention only to the verbal contradiction, "the sun stood still" versus "the earth stood still," not considering that this contradiction can only arise in an optical and astronomical context, and does not carry over into common usage. Nor are these thoughtless ones willing to see that Joshua was simply praying that the mountains not remove the sunlight from him, which prayer he expressed in words conforming to the sense of sight, as it would be quite inappropriate to think, at that moment, of astronomy and of visual errors. For if someone had admonished him that the sun doesn't really move against the valley of Ajalon, but only appears to do so, wouldn't Joshua have exclaimed that he only asked for the day to be lengthened, however that might be done? He would therefore have replied in the same way if anyone had begun to present him with arguments for the sun‟s perpetual rest and the earth's motion.

Now God easily understood from Joshua's words what he meant, and responded by stopping the motion of the earth, so that the sun might appear to him to stop. For the gist of Joshua's petition comes to this, that it might appear so to him, whatever the reality might meanwhile be. Indeed, that this appearance should come about was not vain and purposeless, but quite conjoined with the desired effect.

© Copyright Original Source

[Charles]

Thank you for taking the time, Adrift. Very interesting.

[Adrift]

Thank you for taking the time, Adrift. Very interesting.

Thanks. A small correction though, I stated that Rheticus published Holy Scripture and the Motion of the Earth in 1651, but it was in fact published posthumously (Rheticus died in 1574).

[Charles]

Thanks. A small correction though, I stated that Rheticus published Holy Scripture and the Motion of the Earth in 1651, but it was in fact published posthumously (Rheticus died in 1574).

Thanks for correcting. In this case that was not the important part, but I know the feeling of finding that type of error in something I wrote myself. I also like to get it corrected.

[Mountain Man]

To be fair to Luther, almost no one believed Copernicus' ideas about heliocentrism at the time, including fellow scientists.

Yep. Geocentrism was the "settled science" of its day.