(A prefatory note: Perhaps I should try to find and pay attention to the
"message behind the words" instead of to the words themselves. I had
considered the fact that the Bible uses "phenomenological" language to
be so well known and well understood, that I really did not think I had
to spend the time to set out specific examples. I know that others in
the LUR forum are aware of such language being used in the Bible,
because others in this forum have already posted in agreement with me
and even mentioned a couple of specific examples. So when I wrote about
such language being used, and also discussed it in the context of the
historical controversy over geocentrism, I acknowledge that I took it
for granted that it was commonly understood that the Bible used
phenomenological language. It never dawned on me that anyone could
seriously think otherwise. At least two people have made comments in
dispute of this, so I take this "side trip" away from discussion of OEC,
in order to put this relevant issue into perspective.)
The geocentrism creed arose from the interpretation of biblical passages
that mention the earth in reference to the rest of creation in such a
way as to imply - if interpreted in the simplest, literal fashion - that
the earth is the center of the universe in the sense that the rest of
the universe revolves about the earth. Clearly, from a "relative" point
of view, a human observer standing on the surface of the earth sees the
sun, moon, planets, and stars revolve about the earth (with the sun,
moon, and planets following more complicated patterns against the
backdrop of the "celestial sphere" of the stars).
The Bible frequently uses language that, interpreted literally, teaches
ideas that are obviously wrong from a literal, technical perspective
with regard to what we actually find about the nature of the reality
that we find ourselves in.
I provide the following extensive quote from
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm07_geocentric.html:
|
The Bible repeatedly speaks of the "ends" of the earth. Sometimes
the word in Hebrew is ephes, which means "end, extreme limits,
nothingness". Other times it is qatsah or qetsev, which means,
again, "end, extremity". Deuteronomy 13:7, for instance, uses the
expression "from one end of the earth to the other end". The same
expression, or a reference to the "end of the earth", occurs in
Deuteronomy 28:49, 64; 33:17; I Samuel 2:10; Psalm 19:4; 22:27; 46:
9; 48:10; 59:13; 65:5; 67:7; 98:3; 135:7; Proverbs 17:24; 30:4; Job
28:24; 37:3; Isaiah 5:36; 24:16; 40:28; 41:5; 42:10; 45:22; 48:20;
49:6; 52:10; 62:11; Jeremiah 10:13; 16:19; 25:33; Micah 5:4.
Moreover, not only does the Bible indicate that the earth is flat
and has ends, but it also teaches that the earth is square and has
corners. Isaiah 11:12 says that God will "gather the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth." Ezekiel 7:2 says that
"the end is coming on the four corners of the earth." See also
Revelation 20:8.
At this point, let's have a little scientific confirmation of the
flatness of the earth. In the geocentrist literature I have
encountered, it is often argued that this position corresponds most
with common sense, has been held by the majority of people in world
history, and that scientific calculations are always done on the
assumptions of a fixed earth. Fair enough; but the same is true of
the flat earth position. Go out and look at the land. Looks flat,
doesn't it? Moreover, most people in most cultures of the earth
have held to a flat earth. Even today, surveyors assume an
essential flatness to the earth, and railroad tracks are
manufactured in strait pieces, not in slightly curved ones. Many
theologians in the history of the church, including the late Arthur
Pink I am told, held to a flat earth. So, there you have it.
Convinced? Probably not. But now, how are we to understand the
Biblical language at these points? Well, some references to the
"ends of the earth" actually refer to the ends of the land, the
holy land (Jer. 12: 12; Is. 26: 15), because the Hebrew word for
'earth' and for 'land' is the same. Similarly, some references to
the fixity of the earth actually refer to the fixity of the holy
land, that it would not be subject to earthquakes.
But beyond this, the phrase is used figuratively. In Job 38:13, God
says He will take hold of the ends and shake, as one shakes a rug.
In Psalm 61:2, David, apparently praying in his palace, for he
speaks of himself as the king, says that he is calling from the
ends of the earth, a figurative usage. Isaiah 43:6 refers to the
lands surrounding Israel as the "ends of the earth".
How about the corners of the earth? To understand this, we have to
realize that the Bible pictures the earth as a house, as in Job 38:
4-6. Moreover, the Bible pictures the earth as an altar, with four
corners, in Revelation 7:1; 9:13-21. All of this goes back to the
Garden of Eden, which had four rivers flowing out of it to water
the whole earth, headed for the "four corners". The word for
'corner' in Hebrew is kanaf, which literally means 'wings'. The
cherubim have four wings (Ezekiel 1). The garment worn by each
Hebrew male was to have four wings or corners, so that his garment
was analogous to a house or tent which he carried with him at all
times (Numbers 15:38; Deuteronomy 22:12; Haggai 2:12).
What this gives us is a series of analogous models: the Garden of
Eden is like a house, and they are like an altar, and they are
analogous to the human person (who is the temple of the Spirit),
etc. For an extended treatment of this subject, see the discussions
in my book Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the
World ($11.00 from Biblical Horizons, Box 1096, Niceville, FL
32588).
So, when the Bible uses language that indicates that the earth is
flat, that it has ends, and that it has corners, we are to
understand such language in its Biblical context. And that Biblical
context is the house-model of the world, seen in the glory cloud,
the Garden of Eden, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the holy land, the
entire earth, the human body, the clothing of the human body, the
cherubim, etc. We are not to try to stretch this language to answer
cosmological questions which it was not intended to address....
...the firmament is the same in Hebrew as the verb meaning to beat
out or flatten out. The idea is of a shell or surface cast over the
earth. A synonym for firmament (raqia) is aggudah (Amos 9:6), which
means a vault made of strong bands.
Now as a matter of fact, there is no hard shell around the earth,
nor do birds fly inside a hard shell. Thus, we need to see the
language here as pointing to a symbolic structure. Heaven is like a
fortress, and the firmament-heaven which symbolizes the original
heaven, presents an appearance of a hard surface, a wall, to the
viewer.
After all, the Bible clearly speaks of 'windows' of heaven (Gen. 7:
11; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Is. 24:18; Mal. 3:10). There are 'doors'
in heaven (1 Kings 9:35; 2 Chron. 6:26; 7:13; Ps. 78:23; Rev. 4:1;
11:6; 19:11). Heaven has 'gates' (Gen. 28:17; Lev. 26:19), and so
does the house of hell (Matt. 16:18). Heaven has stories of stairs
(Amos 9:6). A study of these passages will indicate that rain and
food come through heaven's windows, clearly symbolic language.
What we have here is phenomenal language, language of appearances.
The Bible frequently uses phenomenal language, as when it refers to
rodents, reptiles, and insects as "creeping things"; language not
acceptable in Biology 101, but perfectly adequate for the Bible's
purposes. This is not at all to say that the Bible is irrelevant
for science; but it is to say that we must interpret the Bible
correctly, on its own terms, if we are to make proper applications
to the questions of modern science....
Recognizing that the Bible does indeed use phenomenal language, and
that much of the language which speaks of heaven and earth is
speaking of them in symbolic house-analogy language, let us turn to
some of the specific passages which have been taken to 'prove' that
the Bible teaches that the earth is fixed.
If we insist that Psalm 19 teaches a fixed earth and a moving
sun (v. 5), we shall also have to hold that it teaches a flat
earth, for it speaks of the ends of the earth and of the ends
of heaven (v. 4, 6). I think it safe to say that the language
here is symbolic; for we have seen from Genesis 1 that the sun
was given in part to be a symbol.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 speaks of the sun's rising, and verses 6 and 7
certainly seem scientifically accurate. The argument is that
this is not a symbolic passage, and so should be taken
'literally' (that is, non-symbolically). We may agree that
symbolism is not in view here, but that is no proof that
phenomenal language is not being used. Moreover, many passages,
such as Jeremiah 51:16, mix phenomenal and symbolic language
with "scientifically accurate" language: "When He utters His
voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and He
causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes
lightning for the rain, and brings forth the wind from His
storehouses." Note the reference to the end of the earth, and
to the house imagery: storehouses in heaven for the wind. Yet,
clouds do indeed ascend from the earth, and lightning does come
with rain. Finally, as regards Ecclesiastes, it is well to keep
in mind that Solomon uses a very extensive house-analogy in
chapter 12....
...What we are saying is that the Bible uses symbolic,
analogous, and phenomenal language purposefully, and that the
Bible needs to be interpreted on its own terms, not in terms of
the course outlines of Biology 101 or Astrophysics 421.
The Bible says that the earth shall not be moved, apparently
speaking of the whole earth, not only of the holy land, in
Psalm 93:1; 96:10; and 104:5. What is being spoken of here,
however, is not an absolute fixity in space, but a relative
fixity; the earth is fixed and still for the righteous and with
respect to the floods that threaten it. As far as the wicked
are concerned, the earth is not fixed at all, but is shaken
(Ps. 82:5). When God is angry, the earth is not still, but
subject to earthquakes (Ps. 60:2; Is. 24:18-20; and see Ps. 18:
7; 46:2; 68:8; 97:4; 99:1; 104:32).
|
I hope this quote is filled with enough specific examples to satisfy
anyone who wants them.
Here is an in-depth article regarding contemporary geocentrism:
http://www.ldolphin.org/bouw.html
Finally, take a look at these online references and tell me whether or
not contemporary geocentrists are making the same kinds of arguments
that young earth advocates make when they become dogmatic regarding what
is considered "proper" biblical interpretation, and whether or not you
can be a "good Christian" if you disagree with this interpretation:
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm06_geo.html
http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/geocentricity/index.htm
http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/geocentricity/itf.htm
http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/aba/earthfrm.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/the_bible_and_y2k/copernician.html
http://www.fixedearth.com/links/what_if.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/links/symb_rela.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/links/gram_semant.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/links/ind_conc.htm
In addition, you should be aware that historically, many religious
leaders, Protestant as well as Catholic, did teach geocentrism, and
taught it dogmatically in the sense that "to be a good Christian you
must believe this, because this is what the Bible teaches" from the
approach that "this is what the Bible says, so if you don't believe what
the Bible says you can't be a good Christian."
For Dr. Marion Fox's benefit, here it is in syllogistic form:
|
| A. |
To be a good Christian, you must believe what the Bible says.
|
|
| B. |
The Bible says that the earth cannot be moved, and that it is the sun, moon, and stars that move.
|
|
| C. |
Therefore, those Christians who do not believe this (geocentrism) are not good Christians.
|
| |
(Or, alternatively: C. Therefore, you must believe geocentrism to be a
good Christian.)
Now, I am not going to dispute proposition A or B, so does C follow?
Young earth advocates follow this same syllogistic argument:
|
| A. |
To be a good Christian, you must believe what the Bible says.
|
|
| B. |
The Bible says that the heavens and the earth (and all that in in them - Exodus 20.11) were created in six days, and says through the genealogies that this was done just several thousand years ago.
|
|
| C. |
Therefore, those Christians who do not believe this (young universe/young earth) are not good Christians.
|
| |
But the fact is, is that C does not follow from A and B here, and,
indeed, it does not follow for much of the same reasons that C does not
follow from A and B in the case of geocentrism. This is why I frequently
refer to the historical case of geocentrism. It is certainly not for the
reason of just trying to score cheap rhetorical points by using a
"guilty by association" type argument. If that is what you thought, you
were wrong.
It is that when you look at the history of the controversy and read some
of the actual discussion, it is uncanny at how the religious arguments,
and sometimes even the very wording of the arguments, by the
geocentrists are right out of the standard young earth advocate's
toolbox. I am not using an ad hominem "guilty by association" argument.
I am using a "guilty by using the same concepts, concepts which have
already been demonstrated to be incorrect" argument for a controversy
(geocentrism) that I think everyone here will agree with me is a dead
one because it is a wrong belief (due to being overthrown by the
accumulated empirical information that was eventually acquired). If you
have never examined any of the history of geocentrism, and have never
read any of the discussion written by any of the actual participants,
then you would not be aware of these kinds of things.
"God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters,' and God made the firmament, and separated the waters
which were below the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament... Then God made the two great lights...
(and) the stars also. And God set them in the firmament to
light the earth."
-- Genesis 1:7,16-17
"Praise the Lord!...Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars
of light! Praise Him highest heavens, And the waters that are
above the heavens!"
-- Psalm 148:1,3-4
"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars
were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above
which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are
fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light
at night... We Christians must be different from the
philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things.
And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us
concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them
rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret
them in conformity with our understanding."
|
(Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on
Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St.
Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.)
|
|
Notice the "wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in
conformity with our understanding." Now THAT is prejudicial terminology.
When you see Martin Luther use this kind of prejudicial "argument" in
its historical context (from our historical perspective) it is easy to
see the argument for what it really is.
Guess what? This is the same argument that many young earth advocates
have raised write here in this discussion in the LUR forum. Now, which
of them are geocentrists. If the argument is correct, then Luther was
right, and these young earth advocates need to accept the biblical
statements regarding the stationary earth (in order to remain consistent
with their own argument). Or, perhaps they could take the honest route
and acknowledge that perhaps this kind of argument is not really
correct, and that not believing the young earth creed does not
necessarily mean you can't be a good Christian.
This discussion (on old earth versus young earth) DOES follow the same
conceptual lines as the earlier geocentrism/heliocentrism controversy. I
am NOT by this saying that BECAUSE of this, believing in a young
universe/young earth is wrong because geocentrism is wrong. What I am
claiming is restricted to the wrongness of the particular argument that
many young earth advocates make that rejecting the idea of a young earth
makes you a bad Christian, because that is what the Bible says.
It is the details that get you from propositions A and B, to C, that we
are "hashing out." C does NOT follow directly from A and B. THAT is the
problem. THAT is the link that must be established, the burden of proof
that young earth advocates have, if they want to be "exclusivist" with
regard to judging Christians as not being pleasing to God for accepting
the idea of an ancient universe.
And, for your further perusal along these lines, here is another link to
a very similar discussion:
http://scribers.midwest.net/crinoid/presupp.htm
Have good weekend!
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)
| |
|