The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[Tassman]

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

[Adrift]

It was, in fact, the settled science of the day. It was Greco-Roman based. To say otherwise it to deeply misunderstand the history of science.

[Tassman]

It was, in fact, the settled science of the day. It was Greco-Roman based. To say otherwise it to deeply misunderstand the history of science.

[Adrift]

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. It is not at all wrong/unusual/abnormal or whatever to discuss or use the word "science" when referring to pre-Copernican/Galilean investigations of nature. The literature is absolutely loaded with references to "science" when referring to Aristotelian or Ptolemaic cosmology and natural philosophy. Wikipedia has a whole portal on the subject.

[Sparko]

You are an idiot. The geocentric model was based on observations and a lot of calculations. They even invented epicycles and the math to go with them to explain the retrograde motion of the planets. It was very much "science" - and it worked. The bible said nothing about any of it.

[Charles]

You are an idiot. The heliocentric model was based on observations and a lot of calculations. They even invented epicycles and the math to go with them to explain the retrograde motion of the planets. It was very much "science" - and it worked. The bible said nothing about any of it.

There is a little more to it than that:

Galileo was writing and teaching during the Renaissance, the tremendous flowering of scientific and artistic endeavour which bridged the mediaeval and modern periods. The Church was institutionally cautious about the new learning, particularly where it seemed to impact on its own territory. The "heliocentric" idea that the Earth went round the Sun had been known for ever since Copernicus advanced it in 1543, but the Inquisition had declared it heretical 1616. It was obvious that the Sun went round the Earth, and besides, the Bible said so. https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ileo/76008.htm

[Sparko]

There is a little more to it than that:

1. Note - I made a correction to my post. I said "heliocentric" where I meant "geocentric"

The bible never actually says the sun goes around the earth. It just describes things from the viewpoint of someone on earth, same as we still do today, taking of sunrises and sunsets. The bible doesn't teach any science. So the geocentric model started out with the premise that the Earth was at the center (because the bible says God made the Earth special so it was a natural inference) and they did observations, calculations, tests and came up with the geocentric model which as I said before worked. They could predict the motion of the planets and stars, sun and moon accurately. The bible mentions nothing about any of it. And it was as scientific as the Copernican model was.

[Adrift]

Mark Woods should really read James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, or better yet, Tim O'Neill's History for Atheists article The Great Myths 6: Copernicus' Deathbed Publication

[Charles]

1. Note - I made a correction to my post. I said "heliocentric" where I meant "geocentric"

The bible never actually says the sun goes around the earth. It just describes things from the viewpoint of someone on earth, same as we still do today, taking of sunrises and sunsets. The bible doesn't teach any science. So the geocentric model started out with the premise that the Earth was at the center (because the bible says God made the Earth special so it was a natural inference) and they did observations, calculations, tests and came up with the geocentric model which as I said before worked. They could predict the motion of the planets and stars, sun and moon accurately. The bible mentions nothing about any of it. And it was as scientific as the Copernican model was.

In your intepretation the Bible says nothing about any of it. History clearly shows others have interpreted very differently.

[Mountain Man]

You are an idiot. The geocentric model was based on observations and a lot of calculations. They even invented epicycles and the math to go with them to explain the retrograde motion of the planets. It was very much "science" - and it worked. The bible said nothing about any of it.

One of the biggest arguments against the heliocentric model at the time was the lack of observable parallax shift in celestial bodies. This was because they did not have instruments sensitive or accurate enough with which to observe it, but they didn't realize this at the time, and lacking this key piece of evidence was a significant obstacle for those promoting heliocentricism.

[Charles]

Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith. https://web.archive.org/web/20070930...html#conreport

Emphasis mine.

[Sparko]

In your intepretation the Bible says nothing about any of it. History clearly shows others have interpreted very differently.

Feel free to show me where it does. Here is a link to an online bible site:

https://www.biblegateway.com/

If I am wrong I will admit it.

People read verses about the sun setting, rising or standing still and think the bible is a science textbook. It isn't. It doesn't mention orbits or the Earth is in the center of the universe, or the moon and sun go around the earth, or that the earth is flat or round. It just talks about such thing in the vernacular, just as we do today.

[Sparko]

Emphasis mine.

Again, feel free to actually use the BIBLE as your source for what the bible actually says. Go on, I will wait.

https://www.biblegateway.com/

[Charles]

Feel free to show me where it does. Here is a link to an online bible site:

https://www.biblegateway.com/

If I am wrong I will admit it.

People read verses about the sun setting, rising or standing still and think the bible is a science textbook. It isn't. It doesn't mention orbits or the Earth is in the center of the universe, or the moon and sun go around the earth, or that the earth is flat or round. It just talks about such thing in the vernacular, just as we do today.

You need to pay attention to what I wrote. All I said was that your interpretation differed from the one many Christians had. It is well known that part of the problem the church had with Gelileo was that they found it contradicted Scripture. I have even posted an example of it in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post666819

Lists of Bible quotes that can be interpreted to support geocentrism already exist. Here is an example: https://www.openbible.info/topics/geocentrism

Some examples are rather weak, though.

The key to interpretation is in what you wrote: "People read verses about the sun setting, rising or standing still and think the bible is a science textbook." Perhaps you read it differently because you know a litteral interpretation simply would not make sense?

[Sparko]

You need to pay attention to what I wrote. All I said was that your interpretation differed from the one many Christians had. It is well known that part of the problem the church had with Gelileo was that they found it contradicted Scripture. I have even posted an example of it in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post666819

Lists of Bible quotes that can be interpreted to support geocentrism already exist. Here is an example: https://www.openbible.info/topics/geocentrism

Some examples are rather weak, though.

The key to interpretation is in what you wrote: "People read verses about the sun setting, rising or standing still and think the bible is a science textbook." Perhaps you read it differently because you know a litteral interpretation simply would not make sense?

What I said was that the bible never says anything about the sun orbiting the earth, or the planets, or any other detail of the Geocentric model. The Geocentric model was a scientific theory, as scientific as Copernicus's theory. Based on observations and math, it gave an accurate prediction of the positions of the planets, stars, sun and moon. None of those details are mentioned in the bible. Feel free to show me wrong FROM THE BIBLE.