Does it matter if Adam is literal?

George - Hooke is 17th century. That’s the “then” of the suggestion that “the opinion was not uncommon even then.”

The context is the polemic style of 17th century scientists inveighing against their learned opponents, belittling them as simpletons ignorant of “proper” science - and especially Hooke himself, whom the Fount of All Wisdom describes thus: “Hooke was irascible, at least in later life, proud, and prone to take umbrage with intellectual competitors.”

The fact that he can harness to that end a cartoon image of ignorant bumpkins thinking the sun is a sieve says absolutely nothing about the actual existence of such in his own age - or even in the primitive past he evokes as their “true” home. He’s a scientist, not a historian - or even a sociologist. It’s the 17th century equivalent of the cartoon caveman dragging his wife home by the hair - it’s a bad JOKE, as reading the whole piece up to page 3 demonstrates clearly.

Even if it were, in fact, a serious lament about the ignorance of the masses rather than Hooke denigrating his competitors, it would say something about taking a superficial phenomenological view of the world around, and nothing whatsoever about your claim that they got the idea from biblical literalism, which is what needs to be demonstrated.

You seem QUITE skeptical that there could be an uneducated peasantry that differed from the brightest
lights of the Christian world. But even in the Priestly order, there was a considerable variance in education
between the Bishops and a rural valley priest.

I will concur with you that the government officials that Columbus worked with certainly knew the world was
round. But I do not think this was uniformly true throughout Christendom.

George

I’m just skeptical that you’ve given any evidence whatsoever for your suggestion that biblical literalism leading to flat-earth cosmology was widespread in mediaeval times, or even that it existed at all.

I’m not at all skeptical that there may have been peasants who neither knew nor cared the world was round, but they in all likelihood neither knew nor cared if there was a particularly biblical cosmology either. The Reformers’ complaint against the commo0n priesthood was that they couldn’t even read the Bible, let alone interpret it too literally.

And I like to understand original sources, rather than take partial quotes literalistically to prove a point as Wikipedia did with Hooke’s. That’s, after all, what the Creationists do (also with their roots in nineteenth century America).

And as for Columbus Columbus - come on, let’s not shift the goalposts quite so obviously: the 19th century myth (easily traced to a popular biography) is that Columbus had to prove the world was round against an opposing flat-earth Church heirarchy. That is hardly the same as saying some people somewhere may have existed who didn’t believe the world was round.

Even Columbus’s ignorant sailors knew it was round - they mutinied because they were starving, not because they were afraid of sailing off a cliff, as the records show. And I doubt they’d have signed up for a near-suicidal voyage to prove a few country priests or peasants wrong.

And the barefaced lie I was sold as a kid by my mediaeval history book wasn’t that in Columbus’ time some people weren’t up to speed on long-established astronomy, but that everybody in those primitive days believed the world was flat - the picture was of ship with a cross on its sail plummeting over the edge (I remember it well 57 years later).

1 Like

You are quite the skeptic!

Later today I’ll see if I can come up with something definitive - - to soften your anxiety over the matter.

George

@gbrooks9
@Jon_Garvey

The Draper-White Thesis is what’s been popularized (and I would say “propagandiz-ed”) in our school system. The idea that Christianity has been historically linked to the suppression of scientific knowledge — the premise goes “Christians who reject Evolution shouldn’t come off as a surprise. It’s no different than Medieval Christians who insisted the earth was flat because of the Bible.” <<< the burden of proof is to demonstrate the evidence for widespread Christian beliefs in a Flat Earth BECAUSE of the Bible. The Columbus-narrative only existed in a single book by Washington Irving in the 19th Century, which depicts a fictional account of Columbus (not historical) …

Columbus says to the Priest, "The world is round and I will show it to you!"
The Priest replies, "Shhh! Don’t say that!"
Columbus responds, "No really, it is round! It’s not flat!"
The Priest say, “Don’t say that! It’s blasphemy!”

And hence the origin of “round earth = blasphemy”, which gets popularized in our school system to this day because it promotes the Draper-White Thesis, that is, “Christianity suppresses scientific advancement through out the ages.”

What actually happened was Columbus held an unpopular opinion of the BREADTH of the Earth. Not it’s SHAPE. His peers held that the earth’s circumference was around 24,000 miles (pretty close to modern day estimates). Columbus believed in a much smaller estimate: 16,000 miles. His peers advised against the trip because they believe the ocean was BIGGER than he thought it was, and Columbus would not likely survive. Not because of a fear of falling off the edge.

-Tim

Tim - a story like Draper-White that’s been disproved for over half a century and is still in school textbooks ought to be a concern. Who gains from failing to correct it? It’s not unique though - have you seen Ted Davis’ excellent series on the Galileo controversy here? Newton’s “tinkering God error” is another such myth. The sidelining of Alfred Wallace’s belief in directed evolution is a third. As ever, getting back to primary sources busts a lot of myths, and is fortunately fairly easy to practise in these Internet days, with a bit of effort. Sadly, going to Wikipedia is easier.

Still, I am always amused whenever I get the chance to point out that Galileo’s mistake about the cause of the tides (in the face of attempted correction by seafarers, who pointed out there were 2 tides a day, not one as he thought) had been corrected 1000 years earlier by St Bede, who correctly surmised that the attraction of the moon was the cause. But admitting a mediaeval monk knew better than the Science Hero would never do for children, or in pop science documentaries!

It’s probably just the conspiracy theorist in me, but I think it’s part of an unmentioned secular agenda. The reason why people like Galileo are exalted (and often misrepresented) is to paint a picture of scientific observation standing up against the religious institutions of the day. Columbus seems to depict a similar scenario — a man testing whether or not his religious peers have it right.

There are many instances where history is obscured (and even shaped, distorted, like malleable clay) just to promote a modern day premise. We exalt Columbus’ “discovery” even though there was millions of people living in America already due to a multitude of Native American tribes, not including Incans, Mayans, Aztecs etc., even despite that the Vikings still beat him hundreds of years earlier.

We exalt the Civil War, even though many other countries solved the slavery dispute rather peaceably. (But that’s another topic).

As they say “History is written by the victor.”

P.S. No, I never studied up on Newton’s “tinkering God” or Wallace’s “God-guided evolution” myths. Where I got most of my information was from a video group called Voice of Light Productions. You can look up some of their videos on Google. One is called “The Earth Was Never Flat” another is called “The Sectarian Origins of Young Earth Creationism”

For some of their recommended literature (which I still aim to one day read) is The Myth of the Flat Earth and another that’s called Galileo Went to Jail & Other Myths.

Pretty interesting!

-Tim

Tim

Just because one is paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you…

It’s rather fascinating reading the editors’ “talk” about the Wikipedia “Flat Earth” page - which one would have thought would be relatively straightforward. There are reams of protests of reasonable guys with full profiles against dubious (and persistent) edits by atheist skeptics with names like “zzz” and closed profiles.

There’s lots of discussion about the quote saying St Augustine believed in a flat earth, which turns out to be by a genuine Augustine scholar who, however, disagrees with everybody else on that point… but the really amazing thing is that said scholar also started the Canadian Flat Earth Society as a kind of enormous joke, which you’d have thought would exclude him as the major source on an article for general reference.

There’s also another skeptic who erased the entire reference to debunking the Draper-White myth on the grounds that the quote linked to the ASA, “an Intelligent Design Organisation”. A few people here would have something to say about that!

I promised one of my correspondents that I would pull together some definitive evidence that Christianity’s status quo was once “flat-earth” theory. I was surprised by something. Not that the status quo was something else… but that the Middle Ages was not the peak period for flat earth! In fact, the peak was in the 500’s AD/CE. And then, amazingly enough, devout Christians once again returned to Flat Earth thinking in the 1800s! As we know, Creationists ardently try to disprove that Christianity ever held such a backward view. I say, let them have the middle ages!

But it did happen that Christians zealously opposed the world’s scientists - - and it happened twice: in the 6th century and the 19th century.

Below is the full story. Great reading …

Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas
Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair
By Robert J. Schadewald (2008)

Page 93-97

[MODERN FLAT EARTHERS]

“If the commonly believed history of the flat-earth concept is wrong, the true history is much more interesting. [Modern day flat-earther, ] … Charles Johnson is carrying on a tradition, which goes back to Moses, though the particular flat-earth model he defends was only developed in the mid-1800s. It was first set forth by a British fundamentalist . . . Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Think of the Earth as a phonograph record, with the North Pole at the center and the “southern limit,” an impassible region of ice, at the outer edge. Halfway between is the circle of the equator. The sun and moon circle above the Earth every day, with the sun spiraling north or south of the equator to suit the season. Sunrise and sunset are only tricks of perspective combined with atmospheric refraction. Above all is the dome of heaven, perhaps 4,000 miles up. No one knows what lies above it, nor what lies beyond the ice barrier at the southern limit. That is the essence of “Zetetic Astronomy”, the system defended by every English-speaking flat-earther from Rowbotham to Charles Johnson. . . . “

“Rowbotham based his system firmly on the Bible, and he worked it out in great detail. The second edition of his ‘Earth Not a Globe’, the foundation work of zetetic astronomy, runs 430 pages. . . . “

[ANCIENT FLAT EARTHERS]

“The Babylonians believed that the universe consists of a reasonably flat Earth surrounded by water, with the whole covered by a huge dome. According to their cosmology, there is water above the dome and also below the Earth. The celestial bodies are gods and goddesses, and their movements and positions with respect to one another have profound effects on mundane affairs. This cosmology and its associated astrology were common to much of the ancient Middle East. The essence of the Babylonian cosmology was adopted by the ancient Hebrews, and it underlies the text of the Bible.”

“Nowhere does the Bible explicitly mention the Earth’s shape, but it is a flat-earth book from beginning to end. Thus in Genesis 1:6, “God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water from water.’

So God made the vault, and separated the water under the vault from the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault heaven.’ Also, the order Genesis ascribes to creation - - Earth on the first day and the sun, moon, planets and stars on the fourth - - makes no sense in the light of our present cosmology. But it’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE to a flat-earther.

Elsewhere, the Bible comes closer to explicitly describing the Earth’s shape. Thus Isaiah 40:21-22 says, “Do you not know . . . that God sits throned on the vaulted roof of Earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers? He stretches out the skies like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in . . . “

Numerous passages state that the Earth is immovable and others treat the sun and moon as minor bodies. In the New Testament, the presumed shape of the earth is evident in the story of the temptation of Jesus. According to Matthew 4:8, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” The word translated as “world” is the Greek kosmo, meaning the whole universe. From a sufficiently high mountain, one COULD see all the kingdoms of a flat world of limited extent, but the passage is nonsense when applied to a spherical Earth. The same is true of Revelation 1:6 “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him … “

[GREEK PHASE]

But the flat-earth theory was already passé when the New Testament was written. The Greeks are usually credited with proposing that the Earth is a globe. Pythagoras and some of his followers suggested that it rotates around the sun rather than the other way round. By the fourth century BC, the globular opinion dominated Greece. Aristotle offered three proofs that the Earth is a globe: (a) ships sailing out of port seem to disappear over the horizon, (b) sailors voyaging far to the south see stars above the southern horizon that aren’t visible from more northern latitudes, and (c) at a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the Earth on the moon is curved.

[Cosmas’ book “CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY” & Tertulian and Lactantius]

The concept of a spherical Earth found favor in the Hellenic world and even among some of the early Jews. But then, as now, many were determined to cut science to fit their Bibles. The Fathers of the church were not unanimous about the shape of the Earth. Tertullian and Lactantius roundly insisted that the Earth is flat; Clement of Alexandria and Origen said flatly [< hey, the author made a joke!] that it is round. . . For a couple of centuries, these worthies tried to stamp out the spherical heresy among the faithful, bombarding them with verses like those already quoted.

This first phase of the Christian flat-earth movement peaked early in the sixth century when the Egyptian merchant and monk Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote his CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY. Cosmas argued that the Earth’s surface is a flat rectangle, surrounded by seas, and covered by a vaulted roof. Indeed, the Cosmas cosmos looked essentially like a steamer trunk. It measured four hundred days journey east and west by two hundred north and south. Far in the north lay a great conical mountain behind which the sun disappeared at sunset. Rain fell from windows in the vaulted roof, and angels propelled the heavenly bodies on their ways.

Cosmas got many of his arguments (and perhaps some of his odium theologicum) from the Fathers of the church, notably Lactantius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cosmas took the shew-bread table in the Jewish tabernacle as his model of the Earth, flat and twice as long as it was broad. He argued from scripture that the sun must be near and small, since it moved backward for Hezekiah. According to the Bible, everyone on Earth will see Jesus coming through the clouds when he returns in glory. Obviously that’s impossible if the Earth is a sphere.

Near the end of CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY, Cosmas wrote:
“We say therefore,
‘with Isaiah’ that the heaven embracing the universe is a vault,
‘with Job’ that it is joined to the earth, and
‘with Moses’ that the length of the earth is greater than its breadth.”

But despite his powerful allies, Cosmas was fighting a losing battle. The geographical and astronomical/astrological works of the spherical Ptolemy were taking over even as he wrote. A century later, the great churchman Isidore of Seville sided with Ptolemy in his DE NATURA RERUM. In the eighth century, the Venerable Bede adopted the sphere. Later, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Roger Bacon all rejected the CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY. The revolution was quiet but thorough, and within a few centuries, the flat opinion died out among the educated. By the late Middle Ages, the question was considered settled, and theologians had to content themselves with wrangling over whether the antipodes - - lands on the other side of the globe - - were inhabited.”
[END OF CLIPS]

GOOGLE BOOKS LINK

Hey George… while I can’t get to all of your points, I will respond to some of them.

Origen, 2nd Century AD, had some interesting things to say about this passage!

“…it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with atten­tion, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.” -Origen in De Principii Book 4. Passage 16 (Emphasis Mine)

I will concede that “He shall come through the clouds and every eye shall see him.” to be a bit of mystery. Most modern people say that it has something to do with television or media — but since these are recent inventions I wonder what most people thought of this particular passage!

Interestingly, Job says the He (God) “Hangs the earth upon nothing.” … which is pretty amazing to me. Also that most other biblical passages say the earth is on pillars. “Nothing” and “Pillars” are quite substantially different! Many YECs point to Isaiah 40:22 and argue that God “sitting on the circle of the earth” clearly says that the earth is spherical (The Hebrews had no other words for “sphere” so “circle” had to do). My major problem with this is that the Hebrew word is used two other times in the Bible, once in Job, to say “He drew a circle on the surface of the deep” other translations say “He set a compass on the surface of the deep”… I’m just wondering how it’s possible to “draw a sphere”, if “circle” is supposed to mean “sphere”.

In any case, my basic overall point was that the Columbus-narrative is false (it only has one book that’s fictional, not historical, that backs it up) … there may have been some disagreement a-midst Christians, but could you really call it “heresy”…?

The Draper-White Thesis states that Christianity is historically known to be in WARFARE with scientific progress. Yet most people I know say the exact opposite… that the scientific method itself STEMS from Christian Thinking. The idea, for instance, that the earth is stationary and the Sun, Moon, and Stars all go around the earth, are pretty much observed everyday. It takes other exhaustive reasoning, such as telescopes, meticulous recording of the stars (later the pendulum by Focault) all of which wasn’t readily available to them. I’m more interested in their overall PREMISE (their mindset) of the Natural World, than specific claims.

The above is a 40 minute video that goes into pretty good detail about the differences in Jews and Greeks when it came to science (or natural philosophy). If you have the time I think it’s pretty fascinating.

The video discusses how early Christians read their Bible, and goes over 4 basic points that the Christian Worldview promoted when it came to how they understood the world of nature…

  1. The De-Divination of the World

  2. The Relative Autonomy of Nature

  3. The Comprehensibility of the World

  4. The Unity of Heaven and Earth

-Tim

Like I said in my introduction to the book’s comments:

"… let them have the middle ages! But it did happen that Christians zealously opposed the world’s scientists - - and it happened twice: in the 6th century and the 19th century. "

Christopher Columbus and the related “Flat Earth” anecdotes were only important to demonstrate that religion can fog a Christian’s mind. If the popular writers for the last 500 years got the anecdotes wrong for the Columbus period is not really an issue - - if we can document AUTHENTIC history for the exact same thing happening in another period.

Church Fathers INSISTED on a Flat Earth (for Biblical reasons) for centuries leading up to the book CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY. Finally, Christian thinkers were able to dispose of this error.

What is pretty shocking to me was that a brand new Christian movement emerged in the 1800s - - seemingly without the slightest bit of science to trigger it - - all over again!

The point of the story is still valid (twice) - - we don’t need the Christopher Columbus stories to make the point. We have Cosmas’ book CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY, and Robotham of the 1800s!

George Brooks

Alright then … I shall agree with you. HOWEVER, do you agree that two instances (the 6th century and the 19th century), in our very long Church History, is grounds for the Draper-White Thesis that HISTORICALLY Christianity has been at constant war with scientific progress? Not denying your two instances, but they seem few and far between to justify a historical warfare that are separated by 1,300 years.

Like I said earlier… I’m more interested in the overall premise (Draper-White which is still in our textbooks today) than odd instances in our history where there was dispute. Draper-White claims Historical Warfare, yet ironically doesn’t acknowledge that Modern Science (as we know it today) probably wouldn’t exist (or would have been seriously delayed) were it not for Christian Thinking. Science doesn’t support itself — it’s very foundation is on philosophical grounds.

I’ll have to read the book for myself one day.

-Tim

I really really want to agree with you Timothy. But considering the magnitude of the episodes revolving around
religion vs. science, I really can’t blame people for INFLATING the importance of any given event.

Just looking back to the time of Galileo … we had ruined careers… people burned… this is pretty nasty stuff!

So… we turn to the modern period. Do we have a pause when we can shrug off the foolishness of prior times?

Frankly, I don’t see it. Instead of the Catholic Church, we have the Evangelicals stepping in … keeping things agitated.

RELIGION takes the hit - - but it seems to continue to permeate politics, economics and even SCIENCE. So, I just
can’t join your team/protest on this one.

RELIGIONISTS continue to cause the trouble.

George Brooks

Most of the “stake burning” you talk about has to do with priests not wanting the Bible to be translated in a language the people understood. William Tyndale is a prime example of opposition towards that. In this example we aren’t even really talking about “Christians” versus “World Scientists”… we are talking about a religious INSTITUTION that didn’t want people to think for themselves, or even to read the Holy Book that they (the Priests) could ONLY understand.

In regards to Galileo, that’s an extremely misunderstood premise. The Catholic Clergy actually liked Galileo’s idea, and didn’t mind at all that he would write a book about it. The only stipulation was for Galileo to present his idea as “just an idea” and “not yet proven”. Instead Galileo ends up doing the opposite, and writes his book AS proven FACT (even though the information he had wasn’t a whole lot and could still be understood under the Tychonian Model). He also went against the Church in translating Scripture for himself saying, “The Bible teaches how to get to Heaven not the way in which the Heavens go.” So he stepped on the Church’s toes in two different ways … writing off his theory as completely concrete and translating the Bible for himself.

Read the book Galileo Went to Jail & Other Myths for more information.

The Scope’s Monkey Trial, ironically, had to do with a single issue. The common descent of man being related to APES. The Fundamentalists of that day didn’t even disagree with Evolution as a whole or an Old Universe. Most held to the Day-Age theory of Genesis 1. They disagreed on a single point, that is, that Man was SEPARATE from Evolution.

You use words like “religion” and “religionists”… however there are many, many thousands of denominations of Christianity. This “division” was never intended by the Early Church or by Paul. The unity of the Early Church was where I put my main focus on, because you can see a mindset that is more steeped into what Christianity teaches.

Folks like Augustine and Justin Martyr argued that “Because what we can observe in nature is more easily proven, then that should stand first, as opposed to biblical interpretation which is often very difficult.” — in other words don’t get overly attached to Biblical interpretation. This demonstrates a sort of “checks and balances” with that of Science and Scripture. The fact that some Christians have forgotten that doesn’t negate the original premises. The doctrine of the Unity of Truth and the doctrine of God’s Two Books, were very well accepted early on.

In today’s world we seem to have missed that.

-Tim

1 Like

Do not be so negative, George. The Story of Jonah never bothered me, and remember that if God can create a universe, je could save Jonah too. I know you will never agree.

There are Five facts regarding Genesis that must be taken into account.

  1. The Genesis account exists.

  2. ‘Adam’ is a Hebrew name which belongs to a language that did not exist when the first sin was committed in Eden, therefore there was no individual specifically named ‘Adam’ in Eden.

  3. There was a first, original sin committed by Man as Man was not always around to commit it. Therefore the committing of sin by Man had a beginning. A first sin is a certainty.

  4. There must have been an individual later called Adam in the Hebrew language who was the biological father of an individual called Cain.

  5. Cain found a wife East of Eden in a land called Nod. Therefore other, non-related Humans existed separately from any literal Adam, Eve and their offspring.

In the Evolution scenario … we have non-human animals eventually becoming human WITH MORAL AGENCY.

From a Divine Perspective, not necessarily a scientific one, there would be a FIRST human animal with moral agency. And even within the lifespan of such a FIRST MORAL HUMAN, you have a time when the human is an infant and a toddler.

It is customary in Western religion that at some point an infant’s maturation brings him or her into an AGE OF MORALITY.

This is the parallel to the first sin of Adam…

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Genesis and anthropology

@Find_My_Way

Thomas, have you abandoned this thread?

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.