Not sure if anyone has asked this question before, but what do people think of Sungenis's efforts to prove geocentrism (the Earth doesn't rotate and is the centre of the solar system)? It seems quixotic, but... the rationale comes from the following statement (by a liberal Protestant) justifying the admission of homosexuals to seminaries:

"It should be patently clear that the significant advances in our understanding of homosexuality are not irrelevant to what the Church has traditionally thought the Bible says about it. It would not be the first time that changing circumstances have ushered in a reassessment of what the Bible says on any number of topics. To cite but one example, the scientific shift from geocentric to heliocentric thinking constituted a far more significant and potentially devastating threat to Bible-believing Christians than any changes we might anticipate from a more adequate understanding of homosexuality." [emphasis added by me]

Sungenis's point appears to be that if we allow science to diminish the authority of the Bible (or tradition or magisterium) in one area, even if it is not apparently directly related to faith and morals, we allow scientific theories (even of the quack variety)to diminish the authority of the Bible &c. in other areas as well. To show that the Bible theory of geocentrism is quite consistent with the available scientific evidence is therefore a worthy endeavour, since it defends the overall authority of scripture. (By a similar logic, Sungenis attacks evolution and Einstein's theory of relativity).

"The Fall of the Pink Einstein" is Sungenis's articulate explanation of his position.

I actually think that Sungenis's project is admirable, perhaps comparable to Aquinas's efforts to defend orthodox Christian doctrine against the Aristotelean science of his day. It is perhaps worth noting that Aristotelean science is now as dead as a dodo, while orthodox Christian doctrine is going strong. Also, I admire his commitment to this project, inspite of the inevitable ridicule and loss of credibility he suffers as a result.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 03, 2003

Answers

-- top (top@top.top), June 04, 2003.

It is not the purpose of the Bible to propose scientific theories. Anyone attempting to use the Bible as a science text has already perverted its purpose, and is leaving himself open to error. The Bible is inerrant (when correctly interpreted) as a book of divine revelation about God and His relationship to the human race. It is not inerrant when people try to use it for a purpose it was never intended to have. Jesus said the truth would set us free. He meant from our sins of course; but the truth also sets us free from the bondage of ignorance. When science reveals a truth and supports it with overwhelming evidence, rejecting that truth based on one's personal interpretation of a passage somewhere in the Bible simply shows a lack of sincerity in seeking the truth. Real truth can never conflict with the true meaning of the Bible. But misinterpretation of the Bible can certainly conflict with real truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2003.

its a bit of a ludicrous endeavor. see, you dont need to prove that the earth is the center of the galaxy (actually, you cant prove it) as it is impossible to prove that the earth rotates around the sun.

a simple way of describing the situation: there is no proof for or against the earth being the center of the galaxy, or for or against heliocentrism for that part either. BUT the goal of physics is to explain natural phenomenon in the simplest terms possible. star charts can be drawn out, proving either case, BUT the star chart for heliocentrism contains several thousand less micro orbits, making the helio centric chart the simplest and easiest to calculate... and thus the scientifically accepted.

BUT... we know from relativity that motion is a matter of definition of still and moving frame, therefore both theories are inherently correct from a certain point of view.

so this sungenis guy can waste his life trying to prove the impossible, but this was a debate that was more or less settled four hundred years ago AND became case closed in the early twentieth century.

i'm a physics major so my sources are my college professors.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2003.

Paul:

You're perfectly right of course. But some sceptics (like Bertrand Russell) attack Christianity by first pointing out that the Bible was compiled by people with primitive ideas of science, and then questioning why we let these primitive scribes dictate our morality when we know a lot more than they did. It's a seductive argument. If one can show that the folk science of the Bible writers was not that stupid after all, then one can weaken it.

paul:

You're right. Actually, he's not trying to prove geocentricism. He's just offering a $1000 reward to anyone who can prove the helio-centric theory (which he knows can't really be done). The point is just that the Bible scribes who assumed geo-centricism weren't really wrong.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 07, 2003.

okay, im glad to hear he isnt trying to prove geocentrism.

its a good challenge, i dont have that much money, but i have ten dollars for someone who can prove undeniably that the earth rotates around the sun. (hint: its not possible to prove, if you could do that, youd have a nobel prize)

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

He has a challenge to prove evolution too, I think. That may be easier. Strictly speaking though, science only disproves theories, not prove them.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 08, 2003.