A response by CC Walker to a brother who believed that based on his
reading of the Bible, it was wrong to believe in a spherical Earth.
Bro,.
WE have received the following letter:—
To the Editor of The Christadelphian.
Modern Astronomers and the Dots in the Heavens
Dear
Brother Walker.—Referring to your brief eulogium on Sir Robert Ball’s
speculation as to the “dots in the heavens” (The Christadelphian, July,
page 316), I shall be glad if you will condescend to reply to the
following queries through the columns of The Christadelphian.
 |
| Terrestrial globe named "Erdapfel" produced by Martin Behaim. Considered to be one of the oldest globes ever made. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Seeing
that the veracity and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures are denied
by many on the basis of the revolving globe-earth theory, even to the
extent of rejecting the ascension of Jesus into the heaven of heavens as
a “geometrical impossibility.” the matter surely cannot be set aside as
of no importance, and beyond the province of a magazine devoted to the
defence of Biblical teaching and the overthrow of pagan and papal
dogmas.
The globe-earth theory is essentially pagan in its
origin, and no amount of ingenuity has yet succeeded in harmonizing it
with the cosmogony of the Bible.
It is supposed that the
theory was first introduced into Europe by Pythagoras, in the sixth
century b.c., and he was a rank pagan. It was afterwards adopted by
Plato, and latterly modified to its present form by Aristarchus of
Samos, “who went to the length of ranking our green world as a planet
revolving yearly round the sun.” Through Copernicus and Galileo the
theory has acquired a distinct Romish taint.
We may blame the
author of “Lead Kindly Light” for following the glimmer of Rome’s magic
lantern, instead of bringing his mental difficulties to be solved in the
light of the word of God; but what about those who allow themselves to
be led by the vapourings of scientific theorists while pondering over
the plainly worded inspired narrative of creation? . . .
There
may not be much danger of a brother being led astray by the perusal of
modern rationalistic literature, for in that case he is prepared to
antagonize the fallacies of modern thought, but morsels of error, in the
form of “scientific” tit-bits, daintily wrapped up within the covers of
a Biblical magazine, devoted to the defence and advocacy of Scripture
doctrine, may not give rise to suspicion that there is anything wrong.
The wrong is there all the same, and its effects become manifest when he
who has swallowed the morsel finds, as the logical outcome of an
adopted bastard theory, that the Bible and modern science are at
variance, and verbal inspiration a farce. . . .
The late Prof.
Woodhouse, of Cambridge University, once wrote, in reference to the
globe-earth theory—“We shall never arrive at a time when we shall be
able to pronounce it absolutely proved to be true. The nature of the
subject excludes such a possibility” (Astronomy, Vol. 1, p. 13).
The
“great astronomer,” Sir Robert Ball — wherein does his greatness lie?
Certainly not in his discovery or advocacy of scientific truth. He is an
evolutionist of the first order, and a pronounced anti-creationist. He
is just the type of unbeliever that so-called modern science is
producing; the old Scripture - revering type of astronomers, such as
Ferguson, Woodhouse, and Herschell, is fast dying out as the natural
effect of an anti-Scriptural theory.
But here I must submit my queries:—
1.—Is it not a fact that the Bible teaches that there are but two great lights and but one sun?
 |
| Medieval depiction of a spherical earth with different seasons at the same time (from the book "Liber Divinorum Operum"). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
2.—Is it not a pure speculation, unsupported by any natural fact, the theory that the “dots in the heavens” are great suns?
3.—Is
it not a fact that the enormously extravagant distances and magnitudes
of the so-called “dots” have for their bases, the unproved assumption
that the earth is a revolving globe, speeding through space at 68,000
miles an hour, and with an orbit of 190 millions of miles?
4.—Is
it not a fact, as Prof. Robert Main, of Greenwich, candidly affirmed,
that the theories “respecting the distances of the fixed stars and other
cosmical problems” are based upon the “refined speculations of modern
astronomy?”
5.—Is it not the teaching of Scripture that the
earth, that is, the dry land, is a stationary body, founded upon the
seas, and established upon the floods, and with its foundations in the
deep?
6.—Is it not the plain testimony of Moses that sun,
moon, and stars, were made and set in the heavens on the fourth day of
Creation week?
Believing, as I do, with you, that it is
“necessary to bring everything to the test of the Word of God,” I
present these questions in all good faith for your serious
consideration.
Faithfully yours, in the pursuit and defence of all divine truth,
T. Griffiths.
Remarks in Reply
We
would not discuss this matter were it not that our brother does himself
and others an injustice in proclaiming the well settled belief of so
many of his brethren a “wrong” and “bastard theory” and so forth; and
quite unfaithful to the Word of God.
This is not the case at
all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite
well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly
candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly
“works” on the spherical basis. And we have found nothing in the
Scriptures to unsettle this conviction in the least. Quite the contrary.
In fact, the “enormous distances and magnitudes” which appear to be a
stumbling block to our brother, are to us only the fitting suggestions
of the Infinite and Eternal. And this is the impression of many of the
brethren, as it was of the late Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts.
Though
we thus believe, we are in no way responsible for the denials of
ignorance and unbelief. To us, the mention of “geometrical
impossibility” as an objection to the ascent of Jesus into heaven, is
merely an indication of the objector’s lack of true understanding alike
of The Acts of the Apostles, and of natural phenomena.
Admitted
that “the globe-earth theory” is of “pagan” origin, it is not therefore
untrue. Much natural truth is of “pagan” discovery. We do not reject it
on that account; and as to Galileo and the “Romish taint,” we have
always understood that the whole weight of Papal authority was thrown
against “the globe-earth theory,” which it has since been compelled to
accept as true.
 |
| Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Newman’s “religious difficulties,” which he
solved by surrender to Rome, were not like natural phenomena which can
be put to the tests of observation and measurement. It is scarcely right
to allude to the result of scientific observation and measurement,
obtained through centuries of patient labour, as “the vapouring of
scientific theorists.” In these days of the discovery of the North and
South Poles, and of record-breaking travel round the world, we can
surely be permitted to hold to the belief in a spherical earth, without
throwing ourselves open to a charge of unfaithfulness to the Bible.
With
regard to the remarks of Professor Woodhouse, we are inclined to think a
great many of his brother professors would have differed from his
conclusion. It would largely depend upon just what he meant by
“absolutely proved;” and as he is dead we cannot ask him.
So
far as we understand, the prevailing type of “Scripture-revering
Astronomers” is that of believers in the spherical earth. Indeed, we
know of no “astronomy” apart from such a belief. But as to our brother’s
queries:—
Answer 1.—No; the Bible does not absolutely limit
the number of “great lights” to two; nor does it affirm that there is
absolutely only one sun in the universe. It tells us that this is so
with reference to the earth (which is obvious enough to the most
elementary observation), but it also tells us that God made “the stars
also,” without telling us what the stars are. Later, an apostle speaks
of “one star differing from another star in glory,” without defining the
extent of the “glory” of any. Modern astronomy reveals very great
“glory” among the stars, and though, of necessity, largely speculative,
is far from being the profanity that some well-meaning souls imagine it
to be.
Answer 2.—No; there are “natural facts” underlying the
“speculation.” Such are the ascertained velocity of light, the eclipses
of Jupiter’s moons, the fact that the best telescopes will not resolve
the stars into discs as in the case of the planets; the fact of the
existence of the planet Neptune as simultaneously discovered by Adams
and Le Verrier; the facts of parallax and spectrum analysis. “Natural
facts” are the essence of modern astronomy.
Answer 3.—Without
committing ourselves exactly to the figures named, we may say that what
our brother calls an “unproved assumption” is with us a well-settled
conviction, for reasons which may be found in any good work on
astronomy, Sir Robert Ball’s “Story of the Heavens,” for example.
Answer
4.—No doubt Professor Main meant to qualify results and figures by his
remark—not principles. These are too well established to admit of doubt
by any Greenwich professor. With very small parallaxes distances are, of
course, correspondingly indefinite. This appears to be all that Prof.
Main wished to emphasise in his remark, the context on which we do not
know.
Answer 5.—It is certainly written: “The earth is the
Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein.
For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the
floods” (Psa. 24:1, 2). It is also written: “He stretched out the north
over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). We
do not find the passages at all irreconcilable, or even difficult; and
we do not believe that the burden of either of them is mainly (if at
all) the figure of the earth; but rather the majesty of the Creator.
Answer
6.—Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted
or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in
existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be
inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in
existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called
the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth,
let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was
given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in
cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High
God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against
the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in
Israel’s history. As to “the fourth day,” we do not know of any “day” in
the literal sense apart from the sun and its motion. And, therefore, if
the “days” of Genesis 1. are to be taken as literal days, we feel bound
to admit the sun as the origin of the “light,” and “evening and
morning” that were the characteristics of “the first day.” How can you
have “evening and morning” without the sun? We must settle up “the plain
testimony” of verse 5 with that of verses 14–19. As we said before (The
Chri tadelphion, 1910, p. 269), “If we understand Moses as saying that
the sun came into existence on ‘the fourth day,’ we make him contradict
himself; we make him present us with day and night, evening and morning,
without the sun upon which these things depend.”
Under these
circumstances we prefer another interpretation, holding always in
reserve the thought that presently Moses will be on the scene again, and
that we may then, perhaps, be permitted to hear the divine
interpretation of the divine utterances of so long ago.—Ed.
Walker C.C. "Is it 'Wrong' to believe that the Earth is a Sphere?“ The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
Walker C.C. "Is it 'Wrong' to believe that the Earth is a Sphere?“ The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
Contemporary reactions:
Dan Gaitanis
As someone who enjoys this kind of thing, I found this really interesting--but I dont really get what the debate is here--the Bible isnt a book of Astronomy, meaning we dont need to go to the Bible to figure out the composition of the universe. God created it and its awesome, but to say we have to search scripture to try our faith about the universe?
Why not just look at the night sky and be amazed? And take a telescope to see even more stars than you can see without it. A few nights ago I (finally) found Neptune in my telescope, and it amazed me as to how it was discovered in an even smaller scope than mine--it looked like a tiny, very faint, slightly blue, ball, about the size of a period.
As for the stars and sun and moon being literally created on the 4th day, I dont buy that--I think they were already there--it doesnt make sense that the Andromeda Galaxy (2 Million light years away) can be seen from earth with the naked eye, when,if the stars were created only 6000 years ago, we wouldn't see the light from Andromeda for another 1,994,000 years.
As someone who enjoys this kind of thing, I found this really interesting--but I dont really get what the debate is here--the Bible isnt a book of Astronomy, meaning we dont need to go to the Bible to figure out the composition of the universe. God created it and its awesome, but to say we have to search scripture to try our faith about the universe?
Why not just look at the night sky and be amazed? And take a telescope to see even more stars than you can see without it. A few nights ago I (finally) found Neptune in my telescope, and it amazed me as to how it was discovered in an even smaller scope than mine--it looked like a tiny, very faint, slightly blue, ball, about the size of a period.
As for the stars and sun and moon being literally created on the 4th day, I dont buy that--I think they were already there--it doesnt make sense that the Andromeda Galaxy (2 Million light years away) can be seen from earth with the naked eye, when,if the stars were created only 6000 years ago, we wouldn't see the light from Andromeda for another 1,994,000 years.
There was a time when folks'
interpretation of scripture led them to deny evidence for a round earth,
or for the earth going around the sun. Today we believe those things,
and the Bible verses that have a flat
earth at the center of the universe are not only not a problem for
us--they're completely invisible. We can't even spot those verse when we
read them.
It may be that today, our interpretation of the Bible still forces us to deny other evidence for other things. There are plenty of Bible believers (inside and outside Christadelphia) who deny the evidence for an old earth, for example. Because they sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one, and that interpretation tells them they must choose between God and the evidence.
It may be that today, our interpretation of the Bible still forces us to deny other evidence for other things. There are plenty of Bible believers (inside and outside Christadelphia) who deny the evidence for an old earth, for example. Because they sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one, and that interpretation tells them they must choose between God and the evidence.
+
the first generation of Christadelphians:
"The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turn-pike road"
“The Christadelphian: Volume 1” (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001), 93–94.
When we conflate our own interpretation of the Bible with its original meaning, and denounce science because it clashes with that uninspired, fallible reading, we're making the same mistake that brother WDJ (quoted above) warned against.
In the original post, we have an example of a sincere brother who took the Bible literally in a consistent way, and felt compelled to denounce the idea that the earth was spherical. Brother Walker not only accepted as reliable the science of the day, but warned against the extremes of literalism:
"This is not the case at all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly “works” on the spherical basis."
"Admitted
that “the globe-earth theory” is of “pagan” origin, it is not therefore
untrue. Much natural truth is of “pagan” discovery. We do not reject it
on that account; "
"Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in Israel’s history."
The relevance of this 100 year old correspondence to contemporary Bible-science difficulties hardly needs emphasis.
"The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turn-pike road"
“The Christadelphian: Volume 1” (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001), 93–94.
When we conflate our own interpretation of the Bible with its original meaning, and denounce science because it clashes with that uninspired, fallible reading, we're making the same mistake that brother WDJ (quoted above) warned against.
In the original post, we have an example of a sincere brother who took the Bible literally in a consistent way, and felt compelled to denounce the idea that the earth was spherical. Brother Walker not only accepted as reliable the science of the day, but warned against the extremes of literalism:
"This is not the case at all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly “works” on the spherical basis."
 |
| The Earth seen from Apollo 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
"Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in Israel’s history."
The relevance of this 100 year old correspondence to contemporary Bible-science difficulties hardly needs emphasis.
+++
