Copernicus and Darwin: Why is only one not biblical?

[micatala]

I've brought up this question on a number of threads, and thought it might be worth its own discussion.

The question is:

Why should we (or do you, as the case may be) accept the literal '6-day creation' interpretation of Genesis as the only legitimate interpretation, and not accept the literal interpretation made by many in the 16th and 17th centuries who said that the Copernican system was counter to Holy Scripture?

Stated in another way:

If Martin Luther was wrong about the solar system, why not those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible?

I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong.

My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version.

My assumption is not that all literal interpretations are wrong, only that this is a definite possibility, and has demonstrably occurred.

I will note that I am a Christian and my goal is certainly not to deprecate or denigrate either Scripture, Christianity, or fellow Christians.

Some of the relevant passages of scripture (I did not do an exhaustive search) are given below in a quote from the God a Part of Evolution? thread.

From Luther:
"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Luther is referring to Joshua, chapter 10.


Not on the subject of Copernicus, but a quote on the age of the world.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

Regarding the inspiration of scripture:
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....
This is not really on the subject, but does speak to the issue that not everyone agrees with what should be and what should not be included in scripture.

A quote from Calvin
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" He is citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

and from the same
"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
-- Melanchthon, emphasizing Ecclesiastes 1:4-5


Some of the quotes Luther and others cited or may have cited are:
Ps 19:4-5 where the heavens are described as a tent and the sun "a champion rejoicing to run his course." According to the Hebrew view of the universe, the sky was a solid dome under which the planets including the sun moved around the fixed earth. My understanding from a variety fo sources is that they believed in a flat earth, which most Christians later replaced with a fixed but spherical earth at the center of the "sphere of stars." (See Kuhn, for example) This belief was influenced by Aristotle and also the dominant Ptolemaic astronomical system. It is worth noting Genesis 1:6, where God talks about establishing the expanse of sky between the "waters above and the waters below," the former being the source of rain.

Matthew 5:45 " He causes his sun to rise on the evel and the good . . ."

Ps. 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved". This idea occurs in a number of other passages.

Ps. 104:19 "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north . . ."

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand."

"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
-- 2 Kings 20:11

Many years later, of course, we have the more famous events surrounding Galileo.

"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

Quotes from Cardinal Bellarmine, who communicated the decree personally to Galileo, can be found in "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.


Now, I am not saying that any of these individuals should be deprecated for their quotes or for not accepting the Copernican system. I am also not saying that there understanding of scripture were necessary. Obviously, we have all made our peace with Copernicus and I am certainly not throwing away my bible because of what other people believed it said. My only point is that many people in Copernicus' day and for 100 year or more afterwards believed that Copernicanism was unscriptural.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Consider John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

It seems to me a reasonable implication of this is that God cares not at all whether we believe in evolution or not. How our flesh got here is not important. What is important is our spiritual being, and it is to this aspect of ourselves that Jesus addresses us. When we are "created in his image," I think this can only mean His spiritual image, as God is spirit.

[Jose]

With regards to Protestants, I think you also make a good point. My understanding is that modern 'literalistic creationism' is not much more than 100 years old. The insistence on a 6-day creation was not as prevalent among fundamentalists before Darwin as it is today. Creationism as we know it today arose out of the 7th day adventist sect before spreading to other fundamentalist denominations and churches.

I would agree with steen that the Bible is not a science textbook. My question really is, since we know those who took it as such in the 16th century were wrong, why would we insist today that it is scientifically accurate with respect to creation?

This really is a puzzling question. As has been show here, the bible is not a math text; it is not an astronomy text. Nor is it even possible to take Genesis literally, what with the flood destroying every living thing, but at the same time allowing olive trees to survive. It is very curious to me that it is possible for anyone to call their interpretation of the bible to be "literalist" unless they are flat-earthers and, perhaps, Texas legislators, who passed a law some time ago that from now on, Pi really will be 3.0. In general, biblical literalists pick and choose what to be literal about, what to treat as allegory, and what to ignore altogether.

I have a vague sense, as yet unexamined, that this is somehow related to people's views about scientific evidence for creation. An example:

Even though I believe that Genesis can be interpreted literally, that does not exclude me from also believing in it allegorically. So, I interpret it both literally and non-literally.

My basis for interpreting it literally is based on how I analyze the physical data available to me. I find that the evidence from the world can correlate with what is written in Genesis in a logical and coherent manner.

OK. The implication seems to be that if the empirical data goes against the literal interpretation, you would be willing to give up the literal interpretation.

We discussed this in the Evidence for Creationism thread a bit. As I did there, I would argue that even if you can find evidence that is consistent with the Genesis account, if the account is not consistent with ALL the available evidence then it should be abandoned. I don't want to digress into that area at this point, so I will just leave it at that.

We've discussed this basic issue in various threads, but without reaching consensus. As I see it, to support creation, one looks for evidence that can be interpreted as "this is what we'd expect from the Genesis account." But, one stops there. One doesn't go on and look at other evidence, and evaluate the consistency of the interpretations. Similarly for biblical literalism, one finds the bits that one wants to interpret literally, but one stops there. One doesn't go on and look at the bits that are interpreted allegorically, or the bits that are ignored. One compartmentalizes this information in a different part of the memory-banks, so that the conflicting bits of information never come in contact with each other.

[jerickson314]

Mathematical minutia are not really the main thrust of the thread, but for accuracies sake, Pi is not 22/7. This also is an approximation, albeit a much better one than 3.0. 3.14 is also close.

Pi is an irrational number, which means it cannot be expressed exactly as the ratio of ANY two integers.

Pi is also transcendental, which means it is not the solution to any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. (addition mine, but I'll forgive you)

The square root of 2 is an example of an irrational number that is not transcendental.

But, enough of the math lesson.

Finally, someone who knows a bit about pi!

For a specific rebuttal of the point against the Bible made before, see here.

For the first 230 digits of pi straight from my memory, just ask.

[steen]

Is Pi 3.0? yes, or no?

[micatala]

Pi is not 3.0.

The decimal representation of Pi begins (thanks to jerickson )3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399... but it goes on forever without any repeating pattern.

If you are interested in more Pi trivia, you might search for Pi and 'Indiana Legislature'. Some years ago, the legislature was almost convinced to legislate a new, supposedly correct, value of Pi.

For a specific rebuttal of the point against the Bible made before, see here.

In looking this over, I would agree that you could interpret the text taking into consideration the rounding that might have been done, and call into question the conclusion that the Hebrew thought Pi was 3. However, I would not call this a refutation, as you certainly cannot conclude that the Hebrews knew the correct value of Pi either.

I would suggest doing some extra-biblical research to see what might have been used for Pi. If one looks at the history of Pi in Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, you will see that a variety of approximations are used, but the actual value was not known or used in this era. 22/7 was one such approximation, but not the only one.

In fact, Pi could not have been known accurately in this era since, according to most historians, it was not until Pythagoras (ca. 550 B.C.) that the existence of irrational numbers was known. Prior to that time, Greeks and other ancient civilizations assumed that all numbers could be expressed as ratios of integers. Pi is not a rational number. It is VERY highly doubtful that the Hebrews would have had any idea of rational or irrational numbers and thus would NOT have known anything other than approximations for the value of Pi.

Does this mean the Bible is in error? Perhaps not. But it seems to me that it clearly means the Bible cannot be depended on to be accurate in such details, whether they be mathematical or scientific.

If you take your "literal" argument to the extreme, all scientific journals are false.

I would not agree, for the reason that scientific journals typically are very intentional about reporting what the accuracy of their results are. They do not have the same notion of 'literal' or 'inerrant' that Biblical literalists do. ALL scientific conclusions are subject to question, while literalists typically have a number of aspects of the Bible that are not open to question (although what these aspects are varies from person to person).

PS. thanks for the correction on the polynomial equations!

Still, no one seems to be directly addressing the Copernicus vs Darwin question I raised.

[jerickson314]

Pi is not 3.0.

The decimal representation of Pi begins (thanks to jerickson )3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399... but it goes on forever without any repeating pattern.

If you want the first ten thousand digits, see http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/dat ... i10000.txt.

In looking this over, I would agree that you could interpret the text taking into consideration the rounding that might have been done, and call into question the conclusion that the Hebrew thought Pi was 3. However, I would not call this a refutation, as you certainly cannot conclude that the Hebrews knew the correct value of Pi either.

Nor did I claim that the Hebrews knew the correct value of pi! The text doesn't mention pi, only two circle measurements from which a rough approximation of pi can be inferred. You are burning a straw man.

I would suggest doing some extra-biblical research to see what might have been used for Pi. If one looks at the history of Pi in Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, you will see that a variety of approximations are used, but the actual value was not known or used in this era. 22/7 was one such approximation, but not the only one.

Blatner's The Joy of Pi and Beckmann's A History of Pi are good sources for this kind of information, in case anyone is interested.

In fact, Pi could not have been known accurately in this era since, according to most historians, it was not until Pythagoras (ca. 550 B.C.) that the existence of irrational numbers was known. Prior to that time, Greeks and other ancient civilizations assumed that all numbers could be expressed as ratios of integers. Pi is not a rational number. It is VERY highly doubtful that the Hebrews would have had any idea of rational or irrational numbers and thus would NOT have known anything other than approximations for the value of Pi.

This is a red herring, because I did not claim that the Hebrews knew pi. I only claimed that the measurements given are entirely possible, and that therefore no error can be found.

Does this mean the Bible is in error? Perhaps not. But it seems to me that it clearly means the Bible cannot be depended on to be accurate in such details, whether they be mathematical or scientific.

I don't see where you got this conclusion from. Nowhere in this passage was a claim of mathematical knowledge made. Only a set of measurements.

I would not agree, for the reason that scientific journals typically are very intentional about reporting what the accuracy of their results are. They do not have the same notion of 'literal' or 'inerrant' that Biblical literalists do. ALL scientific conclusions are subject to question, while literalists typically have a number of aspects of the Bible that are not open to question (although what these aspects are varies from person to person).

OK, maybe not that bad. But still, even the most literal reading cannot be discredited in the case of the passage we are discussing here. I cannot recall any fractions being present in the Bible. The measurements were all to the nearest unit, or less precise. This is a reasonable inference, and with it there is no problem with the passage.

The claim steen was making regarded a particular error. I was saying that with his logic, one might say that all events reported in a scientific journal were in error. A scientist might report a measurement of 1.43 when a measurement of 1.429999999945345... was correct.

You are correct that scientific journals do not claim inerrancy. However, the claims of inerrancy for the Bible regard divine revelation on the specific points presented, not a complete knowledge by its authors of everything.

Although nonetheless I may differ from many "literalists". For instance, I believe in old-earth creationism, not young-earth.

Still, no one seems to be directly addressing the Copernicus vs Darwin question I raised.

My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version.

I guess by what you said, this question isn't for me. Nonetheless, I will say that there is no reasonable way to claim that the Bible presents geocentrism. Frames of reference combined with an understanding that "rise" and "set" are observational terms provide an easy way to harmonize all the passages you mentioned with heliocentrism. I have also seen good techniques for harmonizing an old earth with the Bible's account of creation. However, I have yet to see a good technique for harmonizing evolution with the Bible's account. This is not to say that there will never be one. It is also possible that the account is allegorical, but I haven't seen good support for this interpretation.

[steen]

Nor did I claim that the Hebrews knew the correct value of pi! The text doesn't mention pi, only two circle measurements from which a rough approximation of pi can be inferred. You are burning a straw man.

Favorite term of yours, obviously. The point is that the bible is NOT accurate.

This is a red herring, because I did not claim that the Hebrews knew pi. I only claimed that the measurements given are entirely possible, and that therefore no error can be found.

But God would know Pi. So unless the Bible is NOT God's word, then Pi = 3.0 according to the correct, specific scientifically accurate Bible. Does God, per the words in the Bible, believe that Pi = 3.0, or is the Bible not accurate?

Does this mean the Bible is in error? Perhaps not. But it seems to me that it clearly means the Bible cannot be depended on to be accurate in such details, whether they be mathematical or scientific.

I don't see where you got this conclusion from. Nowhere in this passage was a claim of mathematical knowledge made.

Does God need to tell us whether it is accurate? Isn't a literal Bible assuming that everything in the Bible is accurate and correct? Why would something be "wrong," why would we have to "interpret and explain" something in the Bible for it to make sense if it is absolutely literal?

Only a set of measurements.

So the Bible can not be relied on for scientific accuracy, that's what you are saying, right?

OK, maybe not that bad. But still, even the most literal reading cannot be discredited in the case of the passage we are discussing here. I cannot recall any fractions being present in the Bible.

Ah, so the Bible is unsufficient? The Bible is suffering from not using exact and precise language? When you read the Bible, is it factualkly correct or not? Is the circumference and radius described as 30 and 5 or not? Do you have to "interpret" or "explain" the result or not for it to be accurate?

The measurements were all to the nearest unit, or less precise.

So God was sloppy and imprecise?

This is a reasonable inference, and with it there is no problem with the passage.

INFERENCE?!?!?!?! You mean that we can't just trust the literal text, you mean that we have to interpret and explain it?

The claim steen was making regarded a particular error. I was saying that with his logic, one might say that all events reported in a scientific journal were in error. A scientist might report a measurement of 1.43 when a measurement of 1.429999999945345... was correct.

So you are saying that God is no more accurate than a scientist, right?

You are correct that scientific journals do not claim inerrancy. However, the claims of inerrancy for the Bible regard divine revelation on the specific points presented, not a complete knowledge by its authors of everything.

Really? Specific points? So not all of the Bible is correct?

Although nonetheless I may differ from many "literalists". For instance, I believe in old-earth creationism, not young-earth.

So the time line in genesis is not correct and accurate? It sure seems like you are saying that more and more things from the Bible needs to be "interpreted" based on current knowledge, doesn't it?

[jerickson314]

Favorite term of yours, obviously.

Since you don't seem to know what it means, see here.

It just so happens that arguments which burn straw men always fail to establish what they purport to establish. That's why burning a straw man is called a "logical fallacy".

The point is that the bible is NOT accurate.

No. I have refuted this using arguments that anyone with at least a third grade level of math should understand.

But God would know Pi.

Yes, that is correct. However, I don't see why He would feel the need to tell anyone. He didn't mention e either. Or phi for that matter. Not even i, for goodness sake!

So unless the Bible is NOT God's word, then Pi = 3.0 according to the correct, specific scientifically accurate Bible.

Not true. This passage was not intended to tell us the value of pi. the value of pi is just an inference from the passage.

Does God, per the words in the Bible, believe that Pi = 3.0, or is the Bible not accurate?

The Bible really does not say this. Seriously.

Does God need to tell us whether it is accurate? Isn't a literal Bible assuming that everything in the Bible is accurate and correct?

Yes. And that passage is accurate and correct. What I was saying in my argument is that the passage is not intended to contain mathematical knowledge, just some measurements.

Why would something be "wrong," why would we have to "interpret and explain" something in the Bible for it to make sense if it is absolutely literal?

Good question. Do you have an actual example? And all passages need to be interpreted and explained based on the available evidence.

I think your "absolutely literal" is a straw man. I didn't claim that all passages need to be taken "absolutely literally", at least not nearly to the extent you are claiming.

So the Bible can not be relied on for scientific accuracy, that's what you are saying, right?

No, not at all. I just said that the particular passage was not intended to convey scientific knowledge.

Ah, so the Bible is unsufficient? The Bible is suffering from not using exact and precise language?

No, silly. This is another of your straw men. There is no need for any more precision than we are given for the purpose of discussing this pool. And the Bible is intended for normal people to be able to read, so we should not expect superfluous precision.

When you read the Bible, is it factualkly correct or not?

Yes, it is correct.

Is the circumference and radius described as 30 and 5 or not?

Yes, with the understanding that this is an approximation as all other measurements are.

Do you have to "interpret" or "explain" the result or not for it to be accurate?

Not much, in this case. In some cases interpretation and explanation are indeed needed. However, I don't see anything wrong with this. Bible study is not for intellectual slobs, it is for people willing to use the minds God has given them.

It is quite a straw man to claim that I am saying we should take everything at face value without looking into it. I would never say this!

But in the case of the pi passage, it really doesn't take much mental effort.

So God was sloppy and imprecise?

No, just reasonable.

INFERENCE?!?!?!?! You mean that we can't just trust the literal text, you mean that we have to interpret and explain it?

Well, yeah, to some extent. However, inference is involved even in literal readings. There are plenty of other passages in the Bible that must be interpreted more extensively. However, I wouldn't say that we can't trust the literal text. I would say that we need to understand what the literal text is actually saying.

And of course there are cases where a passage is indeed figurative. But the pi passage is not one of these.

Really? Specific points? So not all of the Bible is correct?

Equivocation. The "specific points" would be the set of all points mentioned in the Bible. It does not include much that isn't in the Bible. The true nature of pi is an example of the latter.

So the time line in genesis is not correct and accurate? It sure seems like you are saying that more and more things from the Bible needs to be "interpreted" based on current knowledge, doesn't it?

I never said that anything outside of the pi passage didn't need interpretation. I simply said that the pi passage holds up literally.

And yes, you are right that we must interpret the Bible based on knowledge. It's called "being intellectually honest".

[steen]

The point is that the bible is NOT accurate.

No. I have refuted this using arguments that anyone with at least a third grade level of math should understand.

Perhaps you don't know what "accurate" means. The exact reading of Pi from the Bible is approximate by your own word, but is not "accurate." You yourself in another tread stated that mathematicians did a better job at describing PI than the Bible does. The mathematicians are more "accurate." The value of Pi in the Bible is not accurate enough to be meaningful in todays' world.

But God would know Pi.

Yes, that is correct. However, I don't see why He would feel the need to tell anyone. He didn't mention e either. Or phi for that matter. Not even i, for goodness sake!

So you are saying that the message in the Bible is not necessarily the scientific accuracy of descriptions? Could you tell that to the creationists? After all, their claim of Evolution's failure is that the Bible is "accurate" in scientific-minded descriptions. Could it be that creationists are missing the "message" in their desire of a tangible evidence of God to worship?

So unless the Bible is NOT God's word, then Pi = 3.0 according to the correct, specific scientifically accurate Bible.

Not true. This passage was not intended to tell us the value of pi. the value of pi is just an inference from the passage.

So you are saying that the Bible is NOT a science text book?

Does God, per the words in the Bible, believe that Pi = 3.0, or is the Bible not accurate?

The Bible really does not say this. Seriously.

Well, seriously, it does. But is that what matters?? Is the Bible about scientific accuracy?

Does God need to tell us whether it is accurate? Isn't a literal Bible assuming that everything in the Bible is accurate and correct?

Yes. And that passage is accurate and correct.

If it is accurate and correct, then Pi = 3.0. However, you have yourself admitted that the text measurement is a APPROXIMATION, and thus is not accurate.

What I was saying in my argument is that the passage is not intended to contain mathematical knowledge, just some measurements.

Ah, like genesis 1 is not intented to contain scientific knowledge, just some descriptions of changes over time in a progressive fashion? Then, why are people all up in arms about Evolution but not about Pi=22/7? Doesn't that seem hypocritical, this insistence that part of the Bible is scientifically "literal," while other parts are merely approximations of stuff not important to the message?

Why would something be "wrong," why would we have to "interpret and explain" something in the Bible for it to make sense if it is absolutely literal?

Good question. Do you have an actual example? And all passages need to be interpreted and explained based on the available evidence.

Ah, just like Genesis 1, where the available evidence is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, natural laws in Physics and Chemistry, and the evidence from Cosmology again showing that the text is not scientifically accurate. So why are some more fervent and absolutists Christians insisting that Genesis 1 is scientifically ACCURATE in every detail, while Pi is not 3.0 in accurate details? Perhaps you can agree that creationists are kind of hypocritical, unless they insist that Pi = 3.0?

I think your "absolutely literal" is a straw man. I didn't claim that all passages need to be taken "absolutely literally", at least not nearly to the extent you are claiming.

Yes, creationists are wrong in their insistence of this.

So the Bible can not be relied on for scientific accuracy, that's what you are saying, right?

No, not at all. I just said that the particular passage was not intended to convey scientific knowledge.

So only SOME of the Bible is scientifically accurate while other parts are not? Uhum. So it is per the personal political conviction of the reader, whether it is scientifically accurate or not, and of which sections are accurate and which are not?

Ah, so the Bible is unsufficient? The Bible is suffering from not using exact and precise language?

No, silly. This is another of your straw men. There is no need for any more precision than we are given for the purpose of discussing this pool.

Sure there is. Because otherwise Pi = 3.0 Now we know that we need a more accurate measurement of Pi. What the Bible tells us in scientific issues is imprecise, it is not accurate.

And the Bible is intended for normal people to be able to read, so we should not expect superfluous precision.

So when somebody insist on literal word-by-word accuracy and precision in reading Genesis 1, then they are wigged out and silly, ignoring that real world evidence shows us something that doesn’t quite follow the bible's description? Just like the real world reality of Pi is that 3.0 is only an imprecise approximation

When you read the Bible, is it factually correct or not?

Yes, it is correct.

Is the circumference and radius described as 30 and 5 or not?

Yes, with the understanding that this is an approximation as all other measurements are.

So when we measure "a day," then it needs to be tempered with what we know as reality? When we read about timing of the emergence of new life forms, then it is an approximation, more about showing a progression of changes than the actual specific descriptors? When Genesis 1 describes plants as emerging before sunlight, that's just because the timing and rank-order is a bit off, right?

So you are saying that the creationist arguments are bogus, right?

Do you have to "interpret" or "explain" the result or not for it to be accurate?

Not much, in this case. In some cases interpretation and explanation are indeed needed. However, I don't see anything wrong with this. Bible study is not for intellectual slobs, it is for people willing to use the minds God has given them.

So we need interpretation and explanation of Genesis 1.

So God was sloppy and imprecise?

No, just reasonable.[/quote]As in God not trying to provide us with a science education? As God's message in the Bible not being of physical dimensions or processes but rather about the spiritual aspects of our lives? I think we are hitting common ground here.

And of course there are cases where a passage is indeed figurative. But the pi passage is not one of these.

And how do you know when one is figurative? Is Genesis 1 figurative, as should be expected when looking at scientific data? Is the "worldwide" flood figurative, as should be expected when looking at scientific data? Is Pi=3.0 figurative, as would be expected when looking at scientific data?

So the time line in genesis is not correct and accurate? It sure seems like you are saying that more and more things from the Bible needs to be "interpreted" based on current knowledge, doesn't it?

I never said that anything outside of the pi passage didn't need interpretation. I simply said that the pi passage holds up literally.

Actually, if it hold up "literally," then it wouldn't need interpretation.

And yes, you are right that we must interpret the Bible based on knowledge. It's called "being intellectually honest".

Agreed. Thus, creationism, f.ex is intellectually dishonest.

[jerickson314]

Perhaps you don't know what "accurate" means.

adj 1: conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a
standard or performing with total accuracy; "an
accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate";
"accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale" [ant: inaccurate]

That's what it means.

The exact reading of Pi from the Bible is approximate by your own word, but is not "accurate."

It is accurate. All you can conclude about pi is that it is between 2.8 and 3.2. This is entirely correct. It is simply not very specific. But this passage was not intended to talk about pi but rather about that particular pool, and thus we shouldn't expect it to be very specific about pi.

You yourself in another tread stated that mathematicians did a better job at describing PI than the Bible does.

Yes, because they actually tried to describe pi rather than just hint at it. They thus were much more specific.

The mathematicians are more "accurate."

They are equally accurate. The mathematicians are just more precise.

The value of Pi in the Bible is not accurate enough to be meaningful in todays' world.

It's not specific enough to be useful as a value of pi, not surprisingly. It was never intended to be.

So you are saying that the message in the Bible is not necessarily the scientific accuracy of descriptions?

The message of the Bible is much MORE than that, yes. When it gives scientific descriptions, they are accurate. However, science can almost always provide more precision, since that's what it's for.

After all, their claim of Evolution's failure is that the Bible is "accurate" in scientific-minded descriptions. Could it be that creationists are missing the "message" in their desire of a tangible evidence of God to worship?

Most creationists do catch the message. They just go beyond it and make certain statements about origins. And the Bible is "accurate" in scientific descriptions, when interpreted reasonably.

Well, seriously, it does.

Only to someone who is woefully ignorant of mathematics. Like someone who would think that pi was exactly 22/7.

But is that what matters?? Is the Bible about scientific accuracy?

The Bible is complicated enough that to say it is about one specific thing is to oversimplify things.

If it is accurate and correct, then Pi = 3.0. However, you have yourself admitted that the text measurement is a APPROXIMATION, and thus is not accurate.

The measurements were accurate approximations. There is no oxymoron or contradiction here.

Ah, like genesis 1 is not intented to contain scientific knowledge, just some descriptions of changes over time in a progressive fashion?

This does not follow logically, regardless of whether it is true or not.

Then, why are people all up in arms about Evolution but not about Pi=22/7?

I AM ALL UP IN MY ARMS ABOUT PI = 22/7. PI IS NOT 22/7. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862
089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811
174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337
867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066
063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469
519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495
673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907
021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277
857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499
510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100
031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823
537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010
654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138912497217752
834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983817546374649393192
550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678
374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047521
620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964732639141992726042699227967
823547816360093417216412199245863150302861829745557067498385054945885869269956
909272107975093029553211653449872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074
265425278625518184175746728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501
414419735685481613611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625
189835694855620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860
857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886
269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172
874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512694683983525
957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682034962

(more than I know from memory. I copy-pasted to drive the point home).

I would say that it is much more reasonable to find a contradiction between evolution and the Bible than it is to find a contradiction between the correct value of pi and the Bible. Nonetheless, it may be true that evolution does not contradict a properly interpreted Bible.

Doesn't that seem hypocritical, this insistence that part of the Bible is scientifically "literal," while other parts are merely approximations of stuff not important to the message?

Not really. It would be stupid to insist on a monotone Bible that is all either literal or not literal. Context is important.

And I think that the creation account is probably a correct approximation. One that science can shed much more light on than the account gives, but one that is nonetheless entirely true in what it says. This is assuming an old-earth interpretation, of course.

Ah, just like Genesis 1, where the available evidence is the Scientific Theory of Evolution,

The ToE is not evidence. It is a conclusion that is supposedly based on evidence. Genesis must be interpreted based on the evidence, not the conclusion.

natural laws in Physics and Chemistry,

These are strong enough to reasonably be considered "evidence", yes.

and the evidence from Cosmology again showing that the text is not scientifically accurate.

No, cosmology doesn't really contradict the text, at least not any sort of OEC reading.

So why are some more fervent and absolutists Christians insisting that Genesis 1 is scientifically ACCURATE in every detail,

(BTW, "absolutism" is another name for "reasonable logic.")

Genesis 1 may be scientifically accurate in every detail given...

while Pi is not 3.0 in accurate details?

...just as the pi passage is scientifically accurate in every detail given.

Perhaps you can agree that creationists are kind of hypocritical, unless they insist that Pi = 3.0?

Not really, even though I think YECs are wrong.

Yes, creationists are wrong in their insistence of this.

Some YECs, at least.

So only SOME of the Bible is scientifically accurate while other parts are not?

No, it is all scientifically accurate in terms of what it really says. However, in the case of the pi passage it doesn't say much about pi.

Uhum. So it is per the personal political conviction of the reader, whether it is scientifically accurate or not, and of which sections are accurate and which are not?

No, and even if it were it would be a matter of study rather than "political conviction".

And it is a matter of study to determine which parts are truly figurative.

Sure there is.

No, there isn't.

Because otherwise Pi = 3.0

Not at all. I'm sorry if you don't have enough math background to understand my points.

Now we know that we need a more accurate measurement of Pi.

That's what math is for.

What the Bible tells us in scientific issues is imprecise, it is not accurate.

Scientific knowledge was only implied in the pi passage. It was imprecise but accurate nonetheless.

It would be bad logic to make this conclusion from one passage even if it were to talk of pi directly. It is even worse logic since that is not the intent of the passage.

So when somebody insist on literal word-by-word accuracy and precision in reading Genesis 1, then they are wigged out and silly, ignoring that real world evidence shows us something that doesn’t quite follow the bible's description?

Actually, the real world evidence does match up with the Bible's description quite well, when the Bible's description is properly interpreted.

I would expect literal (in the reasonable sense) accuracy but not necessarily precision from Genesis 1, unless the whole thing is figurative.

Just like the real world reality of Pi is that 3.0 is only an imprecise approximation

Weak analogy. There is nothing inaccurate about what the Bible says, even though 3.0 is only an imprecise approximation. But I don't get 3.0 from the Bible, I get 2.8<pi<3.2 at best.

So when we measure "a day," then it needs to be tempered with what we know as reality?

You mean a "yom"? Yes, of course. (Yom is translated "day" but can also refer to a much longer period of time.)

When we read about timing of the emergence of new life forms, then it is an approximation, more about showing a progression of changes than the actual specific descriptors?

Quite possibly.

When Genesis 1 describes plants as emerging before sunlight, that's just because the timing and rank-order is a bit off, right?

It could also be because it doesn't describe that, but rather describes when the sun ceased to be covered by clouds or something.

So you are saying that the creationist arguments are bogus, right?

Many are; some aren't.

As in God not trying to provide us with a science education?

Not in 1 Kings. In Genesis, maybe, maybe not.

As God's message in the Bible not being of physical dimensions or processes but rather about the spiritual aspects of our lives?

Yes, that is the primary message. But it does also make physical claims.

I think we are hitting common ground here.

I think so, too. I agree with much of what you are saying even though I don't think the 1 Kings passage is a valid way to reason it.

And how do you know when one is figurative?

Textual criticism is usually the best way.

Is Genesis 1 figurative, as should be expected when looking at scientific data?

Possibly, but quite possibly not.

Is the "worldwide" flood figurative, as should be expected when looking at scientific data?

Not necessarily. Could just be another case of the English translation saying more than the Hebrew ever did.

Is Pi=3.0 figurative, as would be expected when looking at scientific data?

Not figurative. We have 2.8<pi<3.2, not pi=3.0.

Actually, if it hold up "literally," then it wouldn't need interpretation.

No. Understanding language always requires interpretation. Even when that interpretation is literal.

It takes context and interpretation to get out of "I climbed a tree" that I am talking about a plant. It requires that you understand the English language, and know that the definition of "tree" that is likely to be climbed refers to a plant and not to a computer GUI element or something. Nonetheless, this interpretation from context is quite literal.

Agreed. Thus, creationism, f.ex is intellectually dishonest.

At least parts where certain creationist views are contradicted by clear scientific evidence.

[micatala]

You two have been having some good discussion. Sorry I have been away so long!

Before responding to some particular points made, my general impression is that we are gaining a better understanding of where each other is (are?) coming from with regards to definitions of terms and what our various positions are. If I am not over-generalizing, I think we agree that the Bible's central message is not scientific, and we probably still disagree on the extent to which the Bible is scientifically accurate. We have also clarified the distinction between accurate and precise.

As to Pi, I would agree that it is at best tangential to main message of the passage we've been wrangling about. I would also agree that the Bible seems to be accurate with regards to the value of Pi implied in this passage, unless one insists that a literal interpretation requires that the Bible be both accurate, precise, and complete. If I am understanding jerickson, you do not insist on this level of 'literalness.' I also agree that I may have read into your statements with regards to the Hebrews' knowledge of Pi, etc.

Onto some particulars . . . .

I will say that there is no reasonable way to claim that the Bible presents geocentrism.

I would disagree. Part of the point of the thread is that others in the past have thought it entirely reasonable to claim that the plainest interpretation of scripture is a geocentric one. I am not even criticizing Luther et. al. for making this interpretation, as I think it was in fact the most reasonable one for him to make, given scripture
and the physical evidence available to him. I would give less benefit of the doubt to Cardinal Bellarmine and the Catholic heirarchy because, by that time, Galileo had presented additional evidence that at least strongly hinted that Copernicus might be right.

I guess one question would be why you feel there is no reasonable way to claim the Bible presents geocentrism? How would you address the particular verses quoted in my original post? I agree that one CAN harmonize the Bible with geocentrism, but this does not mean that an interpretation that is not in harmony with geocentrism is unreasonable. I also don't think anyone would have tried to achieve this harmonization except for the extra-biblical evidence, and I think history bears this out.

A more general question would relate to how we distinguish between which passages should be interpreted literally and which not so. We will probably disagree to some extent on this issue, but by addressing particulars, both with respect to geocentricism and evolution vis-a-vis Genesis, we may come to a better understanding of the issues and our various positions.

However, the claims of inerrancy for the Bible regard divine revelation on the specific points presented, not a complete knowledge by its authors of everything.

I think I probably agree with this, although I think it depends on what you mean by 'specific points.' Part of the problem, in my mind, is that I don't see a way to infallibly interpret what the 'mind of God' is based on the text. I would agree there is a distinction between the level of knowledge of the authors and the actual intended content of the revelation by God. Part of the problem, in my view, is that the level of knowledge of the human authors limits the expression of God's revelation. I think this is part of what happened in the passage on Pi, and I would suggest also happened in the Genesis account of creation. A Hebrew author of 500 to 2500 B.C. would not have been able to understand a lot of what we know today about the nature and structure of the universe.

steen wrote:
Why would something be "wrong," why would we have to "interpret and explain" something in the Bible for it to make sense if it is absolutely literal?

Good question. Do you have an actual example? And all passages need to be interpreted and explained based on the available evidence.

I think your "absolutely literal" is a straw man. I didn't claim that all passages need to be taken "absolutely literally", at least not nearly to the extent you are claiming.

I think you both make good points here. Steen is correct that if one takes an extreme literal interpretation, and there are those that do this, one should not have to do (or at least do the absolute minimum necessary of) interpretation or explanation. However, I do not think one has to take such a position, nor should one impute such a position upon someone just because they take the position that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is sufficiently ambiguous and complex that one can make a whole plethora of reasonable interpretations of specific passages, and the work as a whole.

steen wrote:
So unless the Bible is NOT God's word, then Pi = 3.0 according to the correct, specific scientifically accurate Bible.

jerickson"
Not true. This passage was not intended to tell us the value of pi. the value of pi is just an inference from the passage.

steen wrote:
Does God, per the words in the Bible, believe that Pi = 3.0, or is the Bible not accurate?

jerickson:
The Bible really does not say this. Seriously.

Whether the Bible says Pi=3.0 or not is somewhat a matter of interpretation. I would agree that the value is not really relevant to the central message of the text and must in fact be inferred. In that sense, one could say 'The Bible does not really say this.'

This brings a question to my mind. To what extent does the central intention of the author (or God) in writing a passage determine how we should interpret it?

With respect to Genesis, my contention would be that the intention is to portray God as the 'ultimate cause' of the universe and everything therein, and to indicate that there is a special relationship between God and man. With regards to the latter, the central message is a spiritual and moral one, rather than physical or biological. I do not see the central message as inconsistent with evolution at all.

When it gives scientific descriptions, they are accurate. However, science can almost always provide more precision, since that's what it's for.

. . . and here is the crux of the matter with respect to Genesis and evolution. I would disagree that Genesis 1-2 gives a 'scientifically accurate' presentation. Of course, I am open to someone making an interpretation that harmonizes it with the scientific evidence we have available. I think steen, jerickson, and I all agree that the YEC interpretation would not be scientifically accurate.

I would suggest we leave Pi behind for good, and get into Genesis 1. How can Genesis 1 be shown to be scientifically accurate based on the evidence we have? If we explore this a bit, we can then perhaps get back to the differences in interpreting the 'geocentric passages' and the 'creation passages.' If we are liking, maybe some of our more literalist forum colleagues will join in.