Post-Reformation discussions on the uprising Copernican system
- Thread starter Apologia Christou
- Start date
- Status
inkling
Puritan Board Freshman
I have tried in vain to locate this behind two different university-gated libraries...but it's on my search list.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Speaking as a common sense realist, I think it's important to remember that our perspective is limited. There are at least two ways that something may be true even though it's contrary to our senses: 1) if there's an illusion of some sort; 2) when there is another valid frame of reference (relativity). We still have direct contact with reality via the senses, but our interpretation of reality is qualified by our limited perspective.
That being the case, I think heliocentrism can be reconciled with common sense realism.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Respectfully, I understand this subject quite well. Nearly everything in your post is either inaccurate or completely wrong. Including Wolfson's conclusion which is absolutely not justified (and yes, I've actually read the M-M original paper). He is utilizing an experiment setup which designed to test one thing, to conclude something the experiment was not set up to even test or to falsify. That's scientific malpractice at worst, inconclusive or unhelpful at best.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I think Edwards' point rather ironically ignores the common sense reality of sensory perception and perspective.
Last edited:
Ok, if you say you understand the subject I appreciate that and believe you are sincere.
Einstein, according to various historical records, would have disagreed with you about what M-M shows.
Einstein understood that the M-M experiment showed an earth at rest according to the physics of the time. It was in the early 1900s he published his first work on relativity which explained the results, with visible light speed appearing the same to all observers no matter what their location relative to the velocities of the measuring agents or the light source. Einstein referred here and there to M-M.
I do get it that M-M were trying the measure the ether:
The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] Of this experiment, Albert Einstein wrote, "If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption."[A 2]: 219
You can say that M-M proves there is no ether ( firmament). But the simple fact is, if the ether/firmament does exist, the earth is at rest.
On some old geocentric thread here I dug up and posted the link to Time Magazines Person of the Century, and the blip about how M-M left scientists bewildered, with no way to explain why the earth appeared at rest with M-M, and how the greatness of Einstein was his amazing theory that restored heliocentrism and changed physics and all that jazz. Einstein knew perfectly well that if the firmament of the bible existed, the earth was at rest, according to M-M. So he ditched the ether, and he ditched classical physics about waves and measuring the speed of waves.
Logan, you are going to heaven and that is what matters. I don't want to debate relativity with you nor is it specific to the OP. What is related to the OP is how old theologians interpreted the firmament. Is space empty, or are we embedded in something mysterious in which light waves, gravity, magnetism, etc, all propagate? Something firm and unshakable that undergirds all the universe? Is there some kind of foundation on which God placed the earth...is there a firmament? If there is, and we call it by the more modern term ether/aether, then M-M shows the earth at rest...as do other experiments.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
propre marque, et prend ce titre là, pour monstrer que son essence seroit anéantie, sinon que savérité demeurast en son entier? Et que sera-ce quand les hommes viendront la falsifier, changerontl'ordre de la nature, et se desborderont iusques là? Ne faut-il pas dire que toute religion soit mise bas,et que l'essence de Dieu soit (entant qu'en eux est) foulée au pied?Ainsi donc notons sur quoy sainct Paul s'arreste, et quel regard il a quand il s'escrie quetous ceux qui cerchent des excuses frivoleB, despitent Dieu, et luy font la guerre, et qu'en la fin ils sentiront qu'il est trop forte partie pour eux, comme aussi le Prophète Zacharie en parle, Vous sentirez (dit-il), celuy que nous avons navré: vousme venez ioi donner des coups de poignard : puisqu'ainsi est, il faudra que ie desploye ma vertuafin de vous la faire sentir: et vous cognoistrezalors que vous aurez gaigné de vous estre ainsieslevez contre moy. Or nous voyons quelle instruction nous avons à recueillir de ce passage :c'est de ne point desguiser ni le bien ni le mal,mais cheminer en rondeur et en vérité : quandnous voyons quelque chose bonne et louable, quenous confessions qu'ainsi est: et ne soyons passemblables à ces fantastiques, qui ont un espritd'amertume et de contradiction, pour trouver àredire par tout, et pour pervertir l'ordre de nature.Nous en verrons d'aucuns si frénétiques, non passeulement en la religion, mais pour monstrer partout qu'ils ont une nature monstrueuse, qu'ilsdiront que le soleil ne se bouge, et que c'est laterre qui se remue et qu'elle tourne. Quand nousvoyons de tels esprits, il faut bien dire que lediable les ait possédez, et que Dieu nous les propose comme des miroirs, pour nous faire demeureren sa crainte. Ainsi en est-il de tous ceux quidebatent par certaine malice, et ausquels il nechaut d'e8tre effrontez. Quand on leur dira, Celaest chaut: Et non est (diront-ils) on voit qu'il estfroid: quand on leur monstrera une chose noire,ils diront qu'elle est blanche, ou au contraire:comme celuy qui disoit de la neige qu'elle estoitnoire. Comme ainsi soit qu'on apperçoit sa blancheur, laquelle est assez cognuë de tous, encoresy vouloit il contredire manifestement. Mais voylacomme il y a des forcenez qui voudroyent avoirchangé l'ordre de nature, mesmes avoir esblouy lesyeux des hommes, et avoir abruti tous leurs sens.Or quand les hommes lèvent les cornes iusques là, de vouloir pervertir la vraye religion, etquand il est question de la doctrine qu'ils cognoissent estre pure et saincte, ils voudroyent sedresser à l'encontre, ou en despit des hommes, oupar une folle ambition: et veulent (comme disentles Papistes) pisser au benoistier, afin qu'on parle
And what will it be when men come to falsify it, to change the order of nature, and to disrupt it until then? And what will it be when men come to falsify it, change the order of nature, and get out of hand? Is it not necessary to say that all religion should be put down, and that the essence of God should be (as in them is) trampled underfoot? So let us note on what Saint Paul stops, and what a look he has when he cries out that all those who make frivolous excuses, despise God, and make war on him, and that in the end they will feel that he is too strong a party for them, as also the Prophet Zechariah speaks of it, You will feel (he says), he whom we have grieved: You will feel (he says) that he whom we have distressed, you have come to stab me: since this is so, I must use my virtue to make you feel it, and you will know that you have despised being raised up against me in this way. Now we see what instruction we have to gather from this passage: it is not to disguise either good or evil, but to walk in roundness and truth: when we see something good and praiseworthy, let us confess that it is so: and let us not be like those fantasists, who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, to find fault with everything, and to pervert the order of nature. We will see some so frantic, not only in religion, but to show everywhere that they have a monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is laterre that moves and turns. When we see such spirits, it must be said that the devil has possessed them, and that God offers them to us as mirrors, to make us abide in his fear. So it is with all those who fight out of some malice, and to whom it is not good to be shameless. When one says to them, It is not important: And not is (they will say) one sees that it is cold: when one shows them a black thing, they will say that it is white, or on the contrary: as celuy who said of snow that it was black. As well as being seen as white, which is known enough to all, they would still want to contradict it. But you see how there are those who want to have changed the order of nature, even to have dazzled the eyes of men, and to have dulled all their senses. Now when men raise their horns so far as to want to pervert the true religion, and when it is a question of the doctrine which they know to be pure and holy, they want to address themselves against, or in despair of men, or by a foolish ambition: and want (as the Papists say) to piss in the binoistier, so that one speaks
Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia | Archive ouverte UNIGE
Archive institutionnelle de l'Université de Genève - Institutional Repository of the University of Geneva
davejonescue
Puritan Board Junior
Here may be one like it free to view online .
And I think I may have found what you are looking for?
The thing about the passage in Joshua 10 is that it’s a historical narrative; the Holy Spirit is the narrator. And He tells us that
“…the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
“And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.” Joshua 10:13-14
“…the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
“And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.” Joshua 10:13-14
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Joshua also commanded the sun to stand "still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." Are we to understand that the sun stood in Gibeon and the Moon literally was in the valley? Or is there a limit to how literally one should interpret this? The passage isn't even remotely trying to teach anything regarding geocentrism or heliocentrism, so why demand this of it?
If I was writing about this event, I would describe it in exactly the same terms, even with a heliocentric belief. I wouldn't even think to say "the earth stopped rotating so that it appeared that the sun stood still in the sky." That would be terrible way of communicating this miracle. There is nothing in this passage that demands a geocentric view unless one already wants to see it and I'm greatly saddened that how one reads this passage seems to have become almost a test of the true extent of one's faith in God's word, at least with some.
But again, the OP is apparently not talking about this. He's talking about Genesis 1.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Those are great sources, Dave, though they are still not the one that I am looking for from Calvin Theological Journal. As someone from Ireland once said, "I still haven't found what I am looking for!"
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
You too, huh?I still haven't found what I am looking for!"
Logan, you’re right that the OP wasn’t asking for debate or discussion (he’s asking for historical resources). But are you asking the PB not to be the PB?
We’re known for taking a bit offered by an OP in our mouths and running with it. I really would like to hear an explanation of how Joshua 10:13-14 is not teaching and affirming that the sun and moon move. (Also Isaiah 38:8.) Are there any other historical narratives in the Bible that are believed to contain such misleading language and erroneous observation as these two passages? This is a sincere question for anyone.
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
I went and read all of the old threads on this I could find. Rev Winzer, AMR, au5t1n, and some others emphasised that external evidence should not influence the way we read the text, to which I agree. Rev Winzer talked about internal markers in the text. And there was talk about plenary inspiration and the effect of the phenomenological approach on the nature of miracles. A lot of this went over my head.
Perhaps this is a good time to open up this topic, not based on natural revelation but only on special revelation; how we should understand passages like the one in Joshua 10. Particularly regarding plenary inspiration. Should I start a new thread?
PS: One helpful interaction on the science behind it (natural revelation) was concluded by Ben Maas, here, and read as follows:
Confessor said:
I agree with this absolutely. I do not know why I did not mention it earlier. I should have moved from my position that motion always depends on an arbitrary reference point to the fact that God has decreed that Earth is the reference point -- thus it is non-arbitrary in the truest sense of the term. Thanks for the correction.
As Rev. Winzer said, if Joshua ordered that the sun stop, then he ordered that the sun actually stop. Earth is in fact the reference point.
Last edited:
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Using the same assumptions, a heliocentric model would have exactly the same problems as a geocentric model, to the extent that they are actually problems.
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess that's me. Just for claritys sake, what does "OP" mean?
pgwolv
Puritan Board Freshman
Original poster
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, and we do, too.
The question then becomes: how much of our level of supposed knowledge really is “knowledge”? And here I would argue that, no matter how one’s current position is on the matter at hand, believing in the system we are being taught is no more than that: a belief. Because ultimately, it rests upon the principle of assent upon testimony, just the same way as our faith does, too.
It might be a good idea, especially if @Apologia Christou wants the thread to stick to his search for post-Reformation discussions.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
He's specifically asking about Genesis 1 and whether light exists apart from the sun.
@Apologia Christou I remembered a verse that I think might help you:
Revelation 22:5 "And there shall be no night there; and they need to candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lod God giveth them light."
Also Revelation 21:23 "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
We can glean a couple of things from this regarding your question:
1. The sun is clearly the primary source of light in this world today. That's spelled out.
2. God can have a source of light apart from the sun. He did at the beginning, and he will after it is ended.
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
I don’t really mind.
First of all, what you do has nothing to do with exegesis. You jump from one Vers and context of the Bible to some other and draw conclusions based on that. It’s like me saying yeah, Jesus says that no one can come to me lest my Father draws him, and then jump to the other Vers and say: “see, Jesus draws all people to himself” etc. You can do that after the process of exegesis is being done.
But nonetheless, I don’t see how Revelation makes the sun the source of daylight. All it says it that the sun is shining, just as the moon is. So any respect to daylight can not be in view here. No one ever denied that the sun shines, I mean Genesis 1 teaches the very same thing.
Claes Jacob Heijndericksz
Puritan Board Freshman
Q. Does the sun stand still and is the earth turning?
A. Not at all, but the sun always turns around the earth.
Q. Prove it
A. Scripture speaks about the turning of the sun. Ps. 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Q. Do you have another prove?
A. Yes, 2. The standing still of the sun is marked in Scripture as a great miracle. Josh. 10:12,13 Then spake Joshua to the LORD … and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. … So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Aegidius Francken, Kern der Christelyke Leere, Cap. VII Van de Scheppinge
In his lengthier Stellige God-geleertheyd the he gives two additional reasons: The scripture teaches us that the earth stands still, Ps. 93.1 and sun went 10 steps back in the time of king Achaz, Isa. 38:8.
(Rev. Aegidius Francken (1676-1743) was a contemporary of W. á Brakel (1635-1711). Frankens’ Kern still remains populair in the Netherlands with new editions every generation. When the synod of the Christelijke afgescheidene gereformeerde kerken of 1857 gave their instruction for the Theological School (art. 109), they mentioned the books of Joh. à Mark, D. le Roy and A. Francken as examples for the study of Systematic Theology.)
A. Not at all, but the sun always turns around the earth.
vrag. Staet de Son stil en draeyt de aerde?
antw. Geensins, maer de Son loopt altijd rondom den aerdkloot.
Q. Prove it
A. Scripture speaks about the turning of the sun. Ps. 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
vrag. Bewijst dat eens
antw. De Schriftuur spreekt van den omloop der Sonne. Psam 19:6. Die is als een bruydegom, utygaende uyt sijne slaepkamer; sy is vrolijk als een held, om het pad te lopen.
Q. Do you have another prove?
A. Yes, 2. The standing still of the sun is marked in Scripture as a great miracle. Josh. 10:12,13 Then spake Joshua to the LORD … and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. … So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
vrag. Hebt gy nog een bewijs?
antw. Ja. 2. Het stilstaen der sonne werd in de Schriftuur aengeteekent als een groot wonderwerk. Jos.: 10:12,13. Doe sprak Josua tot den Heere … en seyde voor de oogen der Israëliten, Sonne staet stille te Gibeon, ende gy Maene in ’t dal Ajalons. Ende de Sonne stont stille ende de Maene bleef staen, tot dat sig het volk aen sijne vyanden gewrooken hadde … de Sonne nu stont stille in ’t midden des hemels, ende en haestede niet onder te gaen ontrent eenen volkomenen dag.
Aegidius Francken, Kern der Christelyke Leere, Cap. VII Van de Scheppinge
In his lengthier Stellige God-geleertheyd the he gives two additional reasons: The scripture teaches us that the earth stands still, Ps. 93.1 and sun went 10 steps back in the time of king Achaz, Isa. 38:8.
(Rev. Aegidius Francken (1676-1743) was a contemporary of W. á Brakel (1635-1711). Frankens’ Kern still remains populair in the Netherlands with new editions every generation. When the synod of the Christelijke afgescheidene gereformeerde kerken of 1857 gave their instruction for the Theological School (art. 109), they mentioned the books of Joh. à Mark, D. le Roy and A. Francken as examples for the study of Systematic Theology.)
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Scripture interprets Scripture. One should not limit themselves to one passage before consulting all the counsel of God.
Then you are going to have to be more clear as to what you mean. You stated:
"concerning Genesis 1, where the context clearly is visible creation, it seems to strongly imply that daylight is not the result of the sun, but works and exists independently of it."
and
"Furthermore, why would God do such a thing? Like creating light on day one, and then a few days later giving the sun as the source of light. Did he make a mistake?"
and
"I read Calvin on that today, since I had his Genesis commentary in front of me and ye, he just says there that from then on the sun was the source of light. So he is with you there, for example, as probably a lot of people are. But to me that doesn't make sense out of the text and context, but instead involves heavy eisegesis."
I'd suggest trying to be more humble in your inquiry and open to correction. Your attitude thus far has come across to me as "nobody else, including Calvin, sees this big problem I see so they are all wrong." Are you seeking instruction and clarification, or are you seeking to prove you're right and everyone else wrong? You don't seem to be open to attempts to help present you alternatives so far.
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
Sure, brother, no one denies that. But you first or all gotta exegete everything you can out of the passage in front of you, so that you know what it’s about, and then therefore can compare it with other Scriptures which seem to speak about the very same issue at hand, if there are any problems, or in general to throw more light upon it. Because if you don’t properly exegete it first of all, how can you compare it with other Scriptures? You don’t even know what it’s about.
I don’t understand what you mean by being more humble and open to correction. Given you the reasons why I don’t go with Calvin or you in this issue is making me somehow not humble or not open to correction? If I didn’t give you any reasons, this would be a different matter. But I don’t see why you would stamp me that way even thou I explained my dilemma and told you why I differ with you on Genesis 1. I mean, what exactly did (or do) you expect me to do? I am a little confused.
Concerning the quotes of yours: what’s wrong with them? I said that according to my understanding of the text, daylight is not the result of the sun, since it was there from day one. The sun lights the day and shines the day, just as the moon lights and shines the night, but none of them actually affect the daylight or darkness in which they operate. It would be day and bright without the sun, and it would be night and dark without the moon. Sure, there is a difference when the moon is out and full and gives light to the night, than when there is no moon at all, but it’s night and dark in the one case as in the other. And so it would have to be with the sun also.
And what your texts in the Revelation are saying is simply that there will be no night anymore, and neither will you need the light of the sun nor of the moon to shine, but the glory of God itself will shine and light the New Jerusalem.
Is that clear, now? Let me know.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Do you want to know how I escape the arguments of science? Easy. Creation was a miracle, and we don't have any idea what all that entailed.
One example:
Consider the loaves and fishes Jesus provided for the crowds. There's not a man of science in the world that, according to the scientific method, could discover the age of the fishes. When examined, he could only conclude that the fish began its life in the usual way, let's say, three years ago and slowly grew to its press size.
Although this scientist would need to make several assumptions, there is one point he could be sure of. That the fish was not created a mere hour or two ago. And he would be right. The sientific method knows nothing of miracles. Even an honest Christan scientist that witnessed the miracle, could arrive at a different conclusion.
But they would be wrong.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Not sure why you're replying to me. I have no disagreement.
But the OP seems to think that sound exegesis of Genesis 1 demands that we believe that the sun is currently not and never has been the source of daylight. Possible? Yes, anything is possible with God. Necessary? I sure don't see it.
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
If you just stay here, Genesis 1, within the context of the very first act of visible creation, and also consider the fact that nothing else has ever been changed ever since, and forget about anything you have ever learned to the contrary, then yes, this is a strong argument that we would have to come to that conclusion. That your argument on Vers 14 doesn’t hold I have shown before (I assume you see that). On these grounds, it is reasonable to suppose that this is what is being taught here.
Now, could I be wrong? Of course, but I would like to see some scriptural grounds for that. I haven’t come across any yet, but maybe it would be a good idea to do some study on that issue. All I have ever come across is, that the light source changed. But of course, this is being read into the text by necessity, since we “know” that the sun gives us the light.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
And if there were any question, Revelation specifically tells us the sun gives light, as I pointed out.
Perhaps your terminology is inconsistent as you sometimes seem to equate "light" with "daylight" and at other times insist they aren't the same.
Apologia Christou
Puritan Board Freshman
I am not aware that I ever equated light with daylight here, since I am really careful to distinguish these two. Where do you think I did just that?
The sun does give light, just as the moon. But that doesn’t mean that without the sun it would be dark. It’s rather that without the sun there wouldn’t be anything shining anymore, it would just be bright, similar when the sun is just setting behind the horizon. You see the same kind of difference with the moon. On a night in the forest without the moon it would be pretty dark, but with the moon out it’s shining actually makes a difference, but it is still clearly dark outside.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
