ssp0021

Galileo refs the args in this book in his book, Dialogue. ie matter is 3d & moves. book 1 pt 1-2

A summary from this website:

Most people in Aristotle’s time believed the earth was flat, but he did not agree. The Greek thinker realized that a lunar eclipse occurred when the earth came between the sun and the moon. The shape of the earth’s shadow, Aristotle observed, was round. If the earth were flat, its shadow would have a much different form. Next, Aristotle considered the position of the North Star. The farther north you journeyed, the closer the North Star seemed to move to the middle of the sky. But if someone were to travel south of what we now call the equator, the North Star could not be seen at all. Finally, Aristotle watched ships sailing into port. He noticed that at a distance, he could see the tops of their sails before he saw the rest of the ship. Aristotle deduced that this was because of the curvature of the earth. If we lived on a flat earth, none of Aristotle’s conclusions would be accurate.

METAPHYSICS

Aristotle, Metaphysica. circa 350 BC.

0 AD

THE GREATEST

Ptolomy, Claudius. Almagest. circa 150.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 ⁹The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, ¹⁰and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ¹²and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

It is entirely possible that Ptolomy, calling the stationary earth a globe is part of this great delusion. Ptolomy appears shortly after the apostolic era, not long after John wrote Revelation.

Ptolomy say in the opening of his Preface that his purpose of theoretical philosophy is actually hindered by practical philosophy. Living in this world and experiencing it increases practical philosophy. Living in the head and in mathematics and theory increases theoretical philosophy.

Ptolomy says the earth is a globe because the timing of observations of the rising and setting of stars differs for people depending on where they live on the earth, and that we all can't see the same stars at the same time because of the bulge of the horizon of the sphere earth. he says this would not work on a plane, or other shapes, like a cilindar, or others. He mentions other thinkers who thought the earth rotated on it's axis and the stars stood still, so this was a questions already present at the time of Ptolomy. It also seems well established at his time that the earth is a globe, or at least, he does not spend a lot of time proving this point. He sort of just assumes it on very little evidence.

Ptolomy differs from Aristotle in some ways, but agrees with Aristotle that the earth is a globe.

PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL

Eusebius of Caesarea (312 AD) transl. by E.H. Gifford (1903) publ. as Preparation for the Gospel

Eusebius

Who are we and whence do we come? "We have become deserters from the superstition of our ancestors, —this even we ourselves should never deny. But also that, though adhering to the Jewish books and collecting out of their prophecies the greater part of our doctrine, we no longer think it agreeable to live in like manner with those of the Circumcision,—this too we should at once acknowledge." ( Book 1 chapter V)

CHAPTER VI

"It is reported then that Phoenicians and Egyptians were the first of all mankind to declare the sun and moon and stars to be gods, and to be the sole causes of both the generation and decay of the universe, and that they afterwards introduced into common life the deifications and theogonies which are matters of general notoriety."

"...the Phoenicians and then the Egyptians being the first authors of the delusion. For from them, it is said, Orpheus, son of Oeagrus, first brought over with him the mysteries of the Egyptians, and imparted them to the Greeks; just, in fact, as Cadmus brought to them the Phoenician mysteries together with the knowledge of letters: for the Greeks up to that time did not yet know the use of the alphabet.

CHAPTER VII

The idea of humans gradually increasing from nothing to enlightenment is a very old idea, going back to long before Eusebius.

'So then the first generations of men, by whom none of the conveniences of life had been discovered, passed a hard time, being destitute of clothing, and unused to houses and fire, and altogether without any idea of prepared food. For not knowing even how to harvest their food that grew wild, they did not lay by any store of the fruits for their needs: and therefore in the winters many of them perished of the cold and scarcity of food.

'But afterwards, being gradually taught by experience, they took refuge in their caves in the winter, and laid by such fruits as could be kept. And when fire became known, the usefulness of other things was gradually discovered and the arts also were invented, and all other things that could benefit their common life.

CHAPTER VIII

[XENOPHON] 'But no one ever yet either saw Socrates do, or heard him say, anything impious or irreligious. For even concerning the nature of all things, or other such questions, he did not discourse, as most did, speculating what is the nature of the cosmos, as the sophists call it, and by what necessary forces the heavenly bodies are each produced, but he even used to represent those who troubled their minds about such matters as talking folly.'⁷

And presently he adds:

'And he used to wonder, that it was not manifest to them, that it is impossible for men to discover these things; since even those who prided themselves most highly on discoursing of these subjects did not hold the same opinions one with another, but behaved to each other like mad people. For as among madmen some do not fear even things that should be feared, and others fear what is not at all fearful; ... so of those who trouble themselves about the nature of all things, some think that Being is one only, others that it is an infinite multitude; and some that all things are ever in motion, but others that nothing ever can be moved: and some that all things are created and perish, but others that nothing ever can either be created or perish.'⁹

So says Socrates, according to the testimony of Xenophon. And Plato also agrees with this account in his dialogue Concerning the Soul, describing him as thus speaking:

[PLATO] 'For in my youth, Cebes, said he, I myself had a wonderful longing for this kind of wisdom which they call Physical Research: it seemed to me a magnificent thing to know the causes of everything, why each comes into being, and why it perishes, or why it exists. And I was constantly turning my mind this way and that, in examining first such questions as these:—Is it when hot and cold have assumed a kind of putrefaction, as some used to say,—is it then that living things are bred and nourished? And is the blood that by which we think, or the air, or the fire? Or is it none of these, but is the brain that which supplies the sensation of sight, and hearing, and smell? And from these might come memory and opinion, and from memory and opinion, when they have reached a settled state, in the same manner knowledge arises. And then again I speculated on their decay, and the changes to which the heaven and the earth are subject, and at last it seemed to me that I was of all things in the world the least fitted by nature for such speculation. And I will tell you a good proof of it: I was so utterly blinded by the mere inquiry, that even what I clearly understood before, at least as I and others thought, I then unlearned,— even what I thought I knew before.'¹⁰

'"Isis" too, being interpreted, means "ancient," the name having been given to the Moon from her ancient and eternal origin. And they put horns upon her, both from the aspect with which she appears whenever she is crescent-shaped, and also from the cow which is consecrated to her among the Egyptians. And these deities they suppose to regulate the whole world.' 15

EUSEBIUS ON SANCHUNIATHON & ALPHABET LETTER HISTORY

[PHILO] 'These things being so, Sanchuniathon, who was a man of much learning and great curiosity, and desirous of knowing the earliest history of all nations from the creation of the world, searched out with great care the history of Taautus, knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records: and he laid the foundation, as it were, of his history, by beginning with him, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, and the Alexandrians Thoth, translated by the Greeks into Hermes.'

'But the most recent of the writers on religion rejected the real events from the beginning, and having invented allegories and myths, and formed a fictitious affinity to the cosmical phenomena, established mysteries, and overlaid them with a cloud of absurdity, so that one cannot easily discern what really occurred: but he having lighted upon the collections of secret writings of the Ammoneans which were discovered in the shrines and of course were not known to all men, applied himself diligently to the study of them all; and when he had completed the investigation, he put aside the original myth and the allegories, and so completed his proposed work; until the priests who followed in later times wished to hide this away again, and to restore the mythical character; from which time mysticism began to rise up, not having previously reached the Greeks.'

'But before this the god Tauthus imitated the features of the gods who were his companions, Kronos, and Dagon, and the rest, and gave form to the sacred characters of the letters. He also devised for Kronos as insignia of royalty four eyes in front and behind . . . but two of them quietly closed, and upon his shoulders four wings, two as spread for flying, and two as folded.

'But our ears having grown up in familiarity with their fictions, and being for long ages pre-occupied, guard as a trust the mythology which they received, just as I said at the beginning; and this mythology, being aided by time, has made its hold difficult for us to escape from, so that the truth is thought to be nonsense, and the spurious narrative truth.'

'Moreover the Egyptians, describing the world from the same idea, engrave the circumference of a circle, of the colour of the sky and of fire, and a hawk-shaped serpent stretched across the middle of it, and the whole shape is like our Theta (θ), representing the circle as the world, and signifying by the serpent which connects it in the middle the good daemon.

500

Saint Augustine "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

1000

THE SPHERE OF THE WORLD

Sacrobosco, Johannes. Sphaera Mundi. 1230.

His name translates to "John of Hollywood" An important book before Copernicus that shaped early Christian thought on our cosmology, claiming we live on a globe.

1500

LUTHER'S WORKS VOL. 1. LECTURES IN GENESIS

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958. [1483-1546]

p. 30 "We Christians must be different from the philosophers [i.e. scientists] in the way we think about the causes of these things. And if some are beyond our comprehension (like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens), we must believe them and admit our lack of knowledge rather than either wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

Note in the first sentence Luther says, "...the causes of these things." This is a cosmogony argument. (How did we get here?)

Note in the second sentence Luther says that when God describes our cosmology in such a way that we cannot observe it ourselves (i.e. the waters above the firmament), we must believe God over human understanding.

p. 42 "Indeed, it is more likely that the bodies of the stars, like that of the sun, are round, and that they are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night, each according to its endowment and its creation."

This is a cosmology argument. Luther isn't asking how the sun got there. He's asking what the sun is.

LUTHER'S WORKS VOL. 54. TABLE TALK

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967. [1483-1546]

p.358–9. "There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].”

PHILIP MELANCHTHON

Philip Melanchthon in 1549: [fr. faust.com--ref. needed]

“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 [the celestial 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.”

Note Melanchthon has equated "the truth revealed by God" to the Ptolomaic model in which the heavens have multiple spheres with the planets and sun being on different spheres, one bigger inside the other, like Russian nesting dolls. This is not the model described by God in the Bible.

ON THE REVOLUTION OF THE HEAVENLY SPHERES

Copernicus, Nicolaus. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Norembergei apud Ioh. Prtreium, 1543.

p.6-7 in letter to pope in preface: "I have accordingly no desire to conceal from Your Holiness that I was impelled to consider a different system of deducing the motions of the universe’s spheres for no other reason than the realization that astronomers do not agree among themselves in their investigations of this subject. For, in the first place, they are so uncertain about the motion of the sun and moon."

p.8 "I have decided to set his words down here, so that they may be available to everybody: Some think that the earth remains at rest. But Philolaus the Pythagorean believes that, like the sun and moon, it revolves around the fire in an oblique circle. Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the earth move, not in a progressive motion, but like a wheel in a rotation from west to east about its own center."

p.8 "Having thus assumed the motions which I ascribe to the earth ..." it would be so interesting to write an inverted version of this text for the modern day.

TYCHO BRAHE'S INSTRUMENTS FOR ASTRONOMY RHETORICAL EXCERCISES

Brahe, Tychonis. Tychonis Brahe Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata. De noua stella anni 1572.

THE WORLD'S AETHERIAL PHENOMENA, SECOND BOOK

Brahe, Tychonis. De mundi aetherei recentioribus phaenomenis liber secundus. De cometa anni 1577.

TYCHO BRAHE'S INSTRUMENTS FOR ASTRONOMY EXPLAINED

Brahe, Tychonis. Tychonis Brahe Astronomiae instauratae machanica. Noribergae: Apud Leuinvm Hulsivm, 1598.

1600

NEW ASTRONOMY, REASONED FROM CAUSES, OR CELESTIAL PHYSICS, TREATED BY MEANS OF COMMENTARIES ON THE MOTION OF THE STAR MARS, FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE NOBLE TYCHO BRAHE

Kepler, Johannes. Astronomia Nova ΑΙΤΙΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΣ seu physica coelestis, tradita commentariis de motibus stellae Martis ex observationibus G.V. Tychonis Brahe, 1609.

note: I have colored the Kepler links blue as he is primarily known as an astronomist, though he was also a Lutheran.

EPITOMY OF COPERNICAN ASTRONOMY

Kepler, Johannes. Epitome astronomiae copernicanae (1618)

note: I have colored the Kepler links blue as he is primarily known as an astronomist, though he was also a Lutheran.

THE HARMONY OF THE WORLD

Kepler, Johannes. Harmonices MundI. 1619)

note: I have colored the Kepler links blue as he is primarily known as an astronomist, though he was also a Lutheran.

DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE TWO CHIEF WORLD SYSTEMS

Galilei, Galileo. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. 1632.

up to p. 16. Salv argues there are three dimensions and that everything we observe is moveable and corruptible (entropy) so therefore the parts represent the whole: the earth is 3d and moves, just as a rock is 3d and moves.

Ptolemy's superstition over numbers, 3 representing a whole, was lambasted a bit in the 3d dialogue. i agree. that's silly. not sure what I think yet of parts = whole argument on Galileo's side tho. i mean, the sand in a box moves but the box doesn't have to, at least not in itself, but it can be moved. it is moveable. even tho it doesnt have to move to hold sand. is that what he means?

p.17 sagr: is the earth different from the planets? great Q!

Simp argues the earth corruptible and the unchanging stars incorruptible. the heavenly bodies produce light and the earth does not.

p.17 Simp: "On earth I continually see herbs, plants, animals generating and decaying; winds, rains, tempests, storms arising; in a word, the appearance of the earth undergoing perpetual change. None of these changes are to be discerned in celestial bodies, whose positions and configurations correspond exactly with everything men remember, without the generation of anything new there or the corruption of anything old."

p.18 salv argues simp cant draw the conc the the h bodies do not corrupt simply bc he has seen no corruption. they are too far away. simp argues the moon's face has never changed. salv argues we don't have a long enough written record of the moons face to say that. i agree with salv, except that he argues getting closer to h bodies would reveal more, that we are too far to see change on stars. (i think we can see the dot move on Jupiter, tho it has never left jup). i contend the arg for stellar distances is exaggerated or wrong. all bodies may all be the exact dist to earth, or projections, no one can say anything of there distance. we cant measure it without assumptions (see Venus trans sun exp).

SAGR. Well, now; if the earth was generable and corruptible before that flood, why may not the moon be equally so without any such change? Why is something necessary in the moon which means nothing on the earth?

very good point. p.19 he cont, if the stars are bigger than earth as philosophers say, than observing a star appearing or disappearing would be equal to observing the complete destruction of earth.

salv. p. 20 "That is what is done for the most part in the demonstrative sciences; this comes about because when the conclusion is true, one may by making use of analytical methods hit upon some proposition which is already demonstrated, or arrive at some axiomatic principle; but if the conclusion is false, one can go on forever without ever finding any known truth -- if indeed one does not encounter some impossibility or manifest absurdity."

Sounds like the fulcrum i keep talking about. you cant teeter totter on the truth. eventually the truth is discovered and we get off the teeter totter. but if the fulcrum is a lie, we teeter totter all day forever and ever. like modern day politics ad infinitum.

i hypothesize that Lutherans secondarily teeter tottered on stationary vs moveable, because long before that, they were already on the globe lie teeter totter, not even realizing it. this lie felt like established truth, like an unmoving answered question. they 1st estb globe in mind to then teeter on moving vs stationary. i think.

if indeed one does not encounter some impossibility or manifest absurdity." you mean like in Einstein's model where mass at the speed of light becomes infinite? that is a manifest absurdity if ever i seen one.

p.20 Aristotle, as he said many times, preferred sensible experience to any argument.

salv argues we can see spots change on the sun plus two dated supernovae; therefore Aris needs to reexamine his claim that heavens have zero observable corruption. good point! i hear a lot of people im the podcasts i listen to recently state, "As above so below." which is what aris is saying: ie, since corr is obs on earth, it should be obs in heaven, and since its not, the heavens arent corr. well, weve obs corr since aris, so he is wrong, but aris being wrong did not prove copernicus right. the corr we see in the h bodies is not proof that they are like earth in all other ways. we still cant make thatclaim. no obs of physicallity of h bodies save from lying NASA et al have ever been made.

p.21 "(Note: The telescope was an object of suspicion in many circles.)" that's intardesting!!

Since it is true that the shape of a pool ball does mot dictate the shape of the pool table, and the lights in a ceiling do not dictate the shape of a floor, then this whole arg up to here is just mental teeter totter mastubatory nonsense!!!!

1700

1800

1810

1820

DECREE OF APPROVAL FOR THE WORK "ELEMENTS OF ASTRONOMY" BY GIUSEPPE SETTELE, IN SUPPORT OF THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM. PIUS VII, AUGUST 16, 1820

Original Latin source: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301.

Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11, 1822, SIGNED BY POPE PIUS VII TWO WEEKS LATER

Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and For the Church. Vatican Observatory Foundation, 1994.

September 11, 1822, the Holy Office issued this decree:

p.475 The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary."

1830

GENERAL GEOGRAPHY TEXTBOOK

Raumer, Karl von. Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Geographie. Leipzig: F. U. Brockhaus, 1835.

1840

CRUSADES

Raumer, Karl von. Kreuzzüge. Stuttgart: Verlag von G. S. Liesching, 1840.

1850

THE EARTH STANDS FAST: PROOF THAT THE EARTH DOES NOT ROTATE ON ITS AXIS OR THE SUN. LECTURE GIVEN IN BERLIN BY DR. C. SCHOPFFER. FIFTH EDITION

Schöpffer, Carl. Die Erde steht fest. Beweise dass die Erde sich weder um ihre Achse noch um die Sonne dreht. Vorlesung, gehalten in Berlin von Dr. C. Schöpffer. Fünfte Auflage . Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Albert Sacco., 1854.

THE MOVEMENT OF THE CELESTIAL BODIES: NEW AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT OUR EARTH IS AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND THAT THE SUN, MOON AND STARS MOVE AROUND IT

Schöpffer, Carl. Die Bewegungen der Himmelskörper. Neue und unwiderlegliche Beweise, dass unsere Erde im Mittelpunkte des Weltalls steht, und Sonne, Mond und Sterne sich um dieselbe bewegen . Braunschweig: Verlag von Dehme und Muller, 1854.

LIBRARY OF WHAT IS WORTH KNOWING FOR THE EDUCATION OF FEMALE STEDENTS. VOL. 1 (TEXTBOOK OF PHYSICS FOR FEMALES)

Schöpffer, Carl. Bibliothek des Wissenswürdigen für die Gebildeten des weiblichen Geschlechts. Bd. 1. (Lehrbuch der Physik für das weibliche Geschlecht.). Braunschweig: Verlag von G. W. Ramdohr, 1854.

URANUS: POPULAR LECTURES ON ASTRONOMY

Schöpffer, Carl Uranos. Populäre Vorlesungen über Sternkunde. Leipzig, Verlag der R. Henning'schen Buchhandlung, 1857.

ASTRONOMY IN THE BIBLE

Kurtz, Johann Heinrich, Astronomy In The Bible. Philedelphia: Princeton Theological Seminary Library, 1857.

p. 135 makes the claim that the phrase "tohu va bohu" neither proves nor disproves any theories regarding whether this was how God created the earth, or if there was a creation of earth, a desolation, and a necessary reforming of the desolated matter.

on p.3 note 3, Kurtz claims the earth is a rotating globe.

As quoted by Baier-Walther, II, 83. and referenced by Pieper in Christian Dogmatics

(Google Translation) JH Kurtzius We take the codex of the sacred documents of revelation to hand, and in the first line we come across the enigmatic Tohu va Bohu, that desolation, emptiness and darkness, in which the first glance of the he six-day work on the place of light and abundance of life should be beheld. . . We already have an earth in pre-human times, and no less a history that unfolded on and in it. The prophet of prehistory saw this earth as desert and emptiness. The chaotic state of desolation and desolation was preceded by a state of order, of light, of life, as befits every work of God; And in the same way a creative restitution followed in the six-day work, through which light was brought about from darkness, order and abundance of life from desolation and desolation, through which our present earth was founded. The desolation was a consequence of the fall of the angels, from which we further infer that that primeval earth was the dwelling and training place of that part of the angels who revolted against God and thereby lost their principality of the divine advice, by virtue of which he does not allow his world plan to be disturbed, by virtue of which he sets a whole world of life, which had come to ruin, again from the rivers of rulers, men, - from which we further conclude that man, to the Star of Satans and his angels, also to carry out his missed tasks, the disturbed harmony of the universe, which he himself, the destroyer and rebel, was called to defeat and judge. ' (Bible and Astronomy. Second edition Berlin, 1849. p. 94. 96.) The view defended here is very old. . . It is also very widespread in later, more recent and recent times, and not only theosophists and theosophically tinged exponents, such as J. Böhme, St Martin, JM Hahn, Fr. v Meyer, Hamberger, etc., are devoted to it, but also so prudent ones and sober men like Reichel, Stier, GH Schubert, Kniewel, Drechsler, Budelbach, Guericke JP Lange, Schmieder, Ebrard, M. Baumgarten, A. Wagner, Michelis, Wichart, Lebeau, FW Krug etc (p. 95.) D. Delitzschius (Vid. System der Bibl. Psychologie. Leipz. 1855. p. 42-45.), D. Vilmarius (Dogmatik. Gütersloh 1874. I, 242. sq.).

THE PRETENSIONS OF THE EXACT NATURAL SCIENCE ILLUMINATED AND REFLECTED WITH POLOMICAL GLOSSES AGAINST PROFESSOR DR. SCHLEIDEN

Frantz, Alexander. Die Prätensionen der exacten Naturwissenschaft beleuchtet und mit polemischen Glossen wider Herrn Professor Dr Schleiden. Nordhausen: Verlag von Adolph Buchting, 1858.

1860

ZETETIC ASTRONOMY. EARTH NOT A GLOBE! AN EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE FIGURE OF THE EARTH, PROVING IT A PLANE, WITHOUT AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION, AND THE ONLY WORLD IN THE UNIVERSE!

Rowbotham, Samuel Birley. Zetetic astronomy. Earth not a globe! An experimental inquiry into the true figure of the earth, proving it a plane, without axial or orbital motion; and the only world in the universe! London: Simkin, Marshall & Co., 1865.

THE SUN AND ASTRONOMY

Nagy, Károly. Die Sonne und Astronomie. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1866.

TEACHINGS AND DEFENSES

Lehre und Wehre Vol. 13-14. St. Louis, MO, Druck von Aug. Weibusch u. Sohn, 1867.

GERMAN PAPERS: LITERARY-POLITICAL FEATURE SECTION SUPPLEMENT TO THE GAZEBO

Deutsche Blaetter: literarisch-politisches Feuilleton-Beilage zur Gartenalube. Leipzig: Druck von Otto Wigand, 1868.

THE GAZEBO

Die Gartenlaube. Leipzig: Verlag von Ernst Keil’s Nachfolger, 1868.

P. 521

C.F.W. WALTHER CONVENTION ESSAY EASTERN DISTRICT, 1868

Essays For The Church – C.F.W. Walther, Volume I, 1857-1877 (CPH, 1992), pages 185-186

GER

ENG (backtoluther quotes from the 1992 book)

A question was raised about the Copernican System and Joshua 10:12-14 where the sun revolves around the earth. To this Walther answered:

P. 185-186 "This is a part, not an article of the doctrinal structure. Now, if someone cannot see that Holy Scripture wants to teach this here and in other passages, he can indeed still be a believing Christian. However, one who believes that the author of the Book of Joshua meant to write about the sun’s orbit but was himself in error in this matter, he makes the foundation of all doctrinal theology, Scripture itself, uncertain and therefore attacks the foundation. But one who thinks that Joshua is speaking optically, as the Copernicans also do when they say, “The sun is rising,” “The sun is setting"- one cannot condemn him.

In this connection the question was again raised whether it can be admitted that the Bible speaks optically. Answer:

P. 185-186 "This teaching, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, is not an article of faith, but at most only an object of faith, a part of the doctrinal structure of Holy Scripture. [But] because such (optical) language is unworthy of God, in that He would then be using a human way of speaking that contains an error, one must regard such a person as being in error but not as a heretic. But on the other hand it is also certain that such a person is setting up a dangerous hermeneutical principle, in that, you see, this statement is not only given to Joshua to say, but is also used by the author of this [book of] Scripture in the same way in verse 13—a principle whose consequences make the Bible unreliable for him...."

THE THEOLOGICAL REVIEW: A JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE VOL VI

The Theological Review: A Journal of Religious Thought And Life. London: Williams & Norgate, 1869.

p. 281

THE CONTRADICTIONS IN ASTRONOMY: AS THEY ARISE WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM, BUT DISAPPEAR WITH THE OPPOSITE

Schöpffer, Carl. Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie, wie sie bei der Annahme des Copernikanischen Systems entstehen, bei der entgegengesetzten aber verschwinden Berlin: Verlag von Eduard. Wilhelsstrasse 115., 1869.

1870

BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: HIS LIFE, CORRESPONDENCE, AND ETHICS

Willis, Robert. Benedict de Spinoza: His Life, Correspondence, and Ethics, London: Trubner & Co., 1870.

P.146-151 , 176-183 . Article by Rev. Christian August Thomas Selle

P.184 FOOTNOTE ON KNAK

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SCHOOL GAZETTE: MONTHLY JOURNAL FOR EDUCATION AND TEACHING

Selle, C.A.T., Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt: Monatsschrift fur̈ Erziehung und Unterricht, Volume 5, May, 1870

AN ASTRONOMICAL DEBATE BETWEEN AN ADMIRER OF ASTRONOMY AND SEVERAL FAMOUS ASTRONOMERS OF RECENT TIMES WHERIN CLEAR INFORMATION IS PROVIDED REGARDING THE FALLIBILITY OF THE COPERNICAN SOLAR SYSTEM

Lindemann, Johann Christoph Wilhelm. Unterredung zwischen einem Liebhaber der Astronomie und mehreren berühmten Astronomen der Neuzeit, worin deutliche Auskunst gegeben wird über die Untrüglichkeit des Kopernikanischen Sonnen-Systems. St. Louis, MO: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten, 1873.

THE LUTHERAN: GOD'S WORD AND LUTHER'S TEACHING SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY

Der Lutheraner, Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr vergebet nun und nimmermehr, Vol. 28-30. St. Louis, MO: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri, Ohio U. A. Staaten, 1872 1873, 1874.

Astronomical discussion about the infallibility of the Copernican solar system. By J. C. W. L., St. Louis, Mo. 1873.

GER vol 29. p.103

ENG by backtoluther

"A little writing of the preceding title has just arisen from our Synod printer. It is small - it includes only 26 pages in the format of "Lehre und Wehre" - but a gold kernel in the latest literature, that unfortunately! mostly is a rubbish heap.

As you know, the newer astronomers or stargazers, claim by the Copernican system in which the earth moves around the Sun, that the Bible is thoroughly refuted and overturned according to which the Sun moves around the Earth; and yet, these gentlemen require that Christians now believe as firmly the Copernican system as previously the Bible religion. Because they say whoever does not belong to the profession of astronomy, has no right to judge about what they teach; it is therefore a real shame that there still are people who are not professional astronomers as they are and yet do not all want to believe their every word. Through these mighty sayings and bulls of excommunication these unfailing would-be astronomical popes now hunt indeed the people of the world in general into the buck's horn; in order not to fall into the stargazers spell and to be considered enlightened, they recite everything in blind simple faith what these "infallible" popes tell them. They admit patiently that they might not understand astronomy and therefore could not judge it, but if one should hold them to be clever, they should close their eyes delicately and only believe firmly. But with Christians it is different. So firmly they believe their God at his Word, so oppositely on human concepts are strongly convinced; there they want to be persuaded by irrefutable reasons, otherwise they won't believe it.

The pamphlet shows with the title but how little Christians have cause to hold so infallible the Copernican system, as astronomers give it and the would-be enlightened view it. The author has namely the happy idea to once catechize the astronomers or rather to examine them and, since they are difficult to bring to a response, to get themselves their answer from their own writings. As it turns out then, that the men themselves in no uncertain terms have to admit that there simply is nothing with the certainty and security of their system, that they themselves do not believe and only demand of the uninitiated belief in their infallibility. One should read the pamphlet, and one will soon be convinced that this really is so. The writer has only asked the questions, the answers are always word for word taken from the writings of astronomers themselves, and describes the place where the answer stands against.

Whoever wants to be enlightened in the points of the newer solar system should read this pamphlet and he will find full satisfaction. The pamphlet costs 15 cents in hard cover and is handled by our general agent Mr. Barthel.

W."

DR. SCHOPFFER, THE GREAT REFORMER OF ASTRONOMY: A MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS AFTER HIS SCIENTIFIC UNWORTHINESS RECOGNIZED

Küster, C. Jm. Dr. Schöpffer der grosse Reformator der Astronomie. Ein verkanntes Genie nach seinem wissenschaftlichen Un-Werth gewürdigt. Cologne: Verlag von C. Roemke & Cie., 1874.

GER OCR

THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, VOL. XIII NOVEMBER 1875 TO APRIL 1876

The Popular Science Monthly, New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1876.

P.402

THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE

White, Andrew Dickson. The Warfare of Science. London: Henry S. King & Co., 1877.

1880

GUSTAV KNAK: A PREACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE GOD. A PICTURE OF LIFE FROM ETERNAL LIFE AND A MIRROR FOR OUR TIME

Wangmann, Hermann Theodor. Gustav Knak: ein Prediger der Gerechtigkeit, die vor Gott gilt : ein Lebensbild aus dem ewigen Leben und ein Spiegelbild für das Zeitliche. Basel: Verlag von G. F. Spittler, 1881.

GER/ENG

NEGOTIATIONS OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNODICAL CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS, OCTOBER 4-10 1882

Verhandlungen der Neunten Versammlung der Evangelisch Lutherischen Synodal-Konferenz von Nord Amerika, zu Chicago, Illinois, von 4. bis 10. Oktober 1882. St. Louis, MO: Lutherischer Concordia Verlag -- M. C. Barthel Agent, 1882.

THE FIXED IDEA OF ASTRONOMICAL THEORY

Tischner, August. The Fixed Idea of Astronomical Theory. Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1885.

NEGOTIATIONS OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNODICAL CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS, OCTOBER 4-10 1882

Verhandlungen der Neunten Versammlung der Evangelisch Lutherischen Synodal-Konferenz von Nord Amerika, zu Detroit, Nichigan, von 11. bis 16. August 1886. St. Louis, MO: Lutherischer Concordia Verlag -- M. C. Barthel Agent, 1886.

THE LUTHERAN: GOD'S WORD AND LUTHER'S TEACHING SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY

Der Lutheraner, Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr vergebet nun und nimmermehr, Vol. 42. St. Louis, MO: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri, Ohio U. A. Staaten, 1886.

GER p.46

Walther, (trans. by backtoluther) “When I was still tutor in Kahla in 1834, I occasionally disputed with my principal on the question whether everything in the Bible is trustworthy, divine truth. My principal was not at all antagonistic to Christianity, but in his youth he had imbibed many rationalistic ideas, which had not been entirely eradicated. He held, for instance, that what the Bible said about the stars was only the personal opinion of Moses and had not been inspired by the Holy Spirit. He therefore believed that the stars were not mere luminous bodies, but inhabited by similar creatures as our earth. My efforts to change his mind were in vain.

One day he came into my room with a beaming countenance, holding a newspaper in his hands, and said: ’My dear Candidate, you are beaten. I have just read in this paper that the great astronomer Herschel, Jr., who went to Africa at the beginning of this year, has by means of a huge telescope discovered manlike creatures on the moon. Read it for yourself.’ I did so, and the paper actually contained the account as told by my principal. But I then replied:

'Beg pardon, my dear principal, but I hope you do not believe that? Indeed, I declare that, if I myself would look through that telescope and see manlike creatures running around on the moon, I should not believe it; I should hold that these ostensible human beings must be in the telescope.’

My principal thereupon said: ’I fully realize that nothing can be done with you!’ and impatiently left the room.”

Walther then relates that about a half year later the newspaper retracted the article because it had been prepared by an impostor as a hoax and that the famous Herschel had never written it!

see wiki "Great Great Moon Hoax" from August 21, 1835, which states it was retracted 4 days later, not 6 mo later as Walther recollected.

BIBLICAL COMMENTARY OLD TESTAMENT

C.F. Keil, D.D.; F. Delitzsch, D.D.in German, 19th cent., tr. English 1864-1992 by Martin,Bolton,Easton,Taylor,Kennedy. "Biblical Commentary Old Testament." 6 vols.complete.Clark'sFTL.1864.1892.

P. 46 USES TERM "GLOBE"

P. 54 "It is now a generally accepted truth of natural science, that the light does not spring from the sun and stars, but that the sun itself is a dark body, and the light proceeds from an atmosphere which surrounds it."

p. 52-54. Discussion of the Second day of creation. Defines firmament, says waters above are the clouds, not aetherial waters, says we live on a globe and that other planets are also globes, that the sky is not solid mass as the Greek poets described.

Mentions Keerl in footnote on p. 53 as the latest theological supporter of the theory of waters above the firmament, claiming the waters of the flood were different from the rain which falls from clouds.

1890

YEAR OF GRACE (PART 2)

Walther, Dr. C. F. W. Gnadenjahr, St. Louis MO: Lutherischere Concordia Verlag, 1891.

SEMON FROM 7th SUNDAY after TRINITY ON Mark 8:1-9

THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, APRIL 1892

The Popular Science Monthly, New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1892.

ENG trans by backtoluther

p.737

TEACHINGS AND DEFENSES, FRANZ PIEPER ON MARSHIANS

Lehre und Wehre Vol. 42. St. Louis, MO, Druck von Aug. Weibusch u. Sohn, 1896.

GER P.239

– Franz Pieper: "Chicago, Ill., July 22. A special dispatch from Boston, Mass, reports: [Percival] Lowell, Boston's famous astronomer, is currently on the way to Flagstaff, Arizona, at the head of a extremely important astronomical expedition. The purpose of this is to make observations concerning the planet Mars and, if possible, to obtain fully valid evidence that Mars is inhabited by highly organized creatures. Mr. Lowell has for several years dedicated his studies to Mars and in 1894 he sketched a very complete map; and his information, that the canals observed on Mars are the work of purposeful working creatures and not the fruit of lifeless natural forces, has caused a great sensation among the Europe's astronomers. As a result of this, the observations which Mr. Lowell intends to make now is awaited by astronomers of the whole world with great suspense. The editors of a local newspaper remark: It is not true that Lowell was the first and most prominent in the claim that Mars had to be inhabited by intelligent beings. The main observers of Mars and the main advocates of the view that it was inhabited by intelligent beings were the Italian Schiaparelli and the French Flammarion, before Lowell. Luther writes: "It is not possible that Nature will be recognized by reason after the fall of Adam which has blinded them, recognized further than experience or divine enlightenment gives. So restless reason cannot remain silent and be satisfied because it wants to know everything, like a monkey; this is why she puffs up, and muses and researches further than is commanded her, and despises what has been given her by experience or from God; nor takes what it seeks for. So fools work in vain with all their studying and knowledge. Therefore it has come that the people, because they despise the natural art or could not attain to it, have divided into countless groups and sects. Several have written of the earth, several of the waters, some this, some that, so that the making of books and of studies is without measure. Finally, when they were tired of study here on earth, they ascended to heaven and wanted to know the nature of heaven and the stars, of which nevertheless no experience of it may ever be had. There they have overcome with quite free power to fictionalize, lie, deceive, and say whatever they pleased of the innocent heaven. For as one says: Those who lie about distant lands, lie boldly so that they cannot be denied with experience. So also because nobody may reach to the heavens and verify through experience their teaching or point out their error, they are free to lie with complete confidence that no one will challenge them." [St. Louis ed., vol. 11, col. 301, paragrs 18-19; cp. Am. Ed. vol 52, pgs 164-165]

1900

THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY VOLUME IV

Theological Quarterly Volume IV, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1902

pp. 37-44 Science and the Church by Professor Grabner

Professor mentions the name "Mr. Parallax" on p. 38. That is the pen name of Samuel Rowbothom who wrote "Zetetic Astronomy back in the 1865. In that book, Rowbotham says the earth is not a globe, even in the title he says this, so currious why most Lutherans held on to the stationary globe theory even after this book, that Grabner knew about.

Grabner makes the very good point that no church should ever confess a certain human model of the universe and that the claims by The Independant that the LCMS is Ptlomeic is false. it does not accept any models. Good! But, as the current state of affairs shows, I think it is safe to say that over 90% of WELS members hold to a globe model. God never mentions globe! That is a human model!

Grabner points out the Bible is true and two contradictory statements cannot stand, so a synod is right and correct to deny statements which contradict Scripture. In this sense the WELS today denies Evolution. It is my claim that the WELS and other Lutherans would do well as church bodies to also deny the globe model. It is a more powerful idol than evolution in many clear ways. Evolution needs the globe model.

CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. COSMOGENY AND ASTRONOMY, OR: ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE WORLD

Pasche, F. E. Christliche Weltanschauung.Kosmogonie und Astronomie, oder: Entstehung und Beschaffenheit der Welt.Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Druck der Germania Publishing Co., 1904.

p.3 This instructive, delightful book was not conceived with the ambitious, glorified design of hatching a New Idea, yet stirring up a Revolution among the old opposing views of Cosmogony and Astronomy. No, for the time being it is just a matter of conscience for the author. That is why he has researched this matter with diligence and patience for years in order to gain the right knowledge and position for himself as a Christian. And for the sake of the many Christians who may have lost their way in the wrong worldview, he opens his mouth to testify and confess by publishing his conviction based on God's Word.

p.3 The author is, as the reader will soon notice and find again and again in the course of the treatise, a simple-minded, humble, but well- likednd bible Christian who believes straight out what the Holy Scripture says and who therefore also speaks for the known truth.

Pasche will go on to present his model of the cosmos wherein we live on a stationary non rotating globe. Pasche, in my view is wrong. Nevertheless he spoke his truth. I commend him for that, and also learn from him in this, that I could also be wrong in my assertion that the earth is a flat and stationary plane with a close stelar system.

p.8 Mediation theologians have developed their own theories to reconcile scripture with the achievements of science. Either one assumes a double creation , according to which God first created the primeval world with the angels; and when this primeval world was devastated by the fall of a part of the angels, God then undertook a new creation, which took place in the six-day work. Or one makes things easy for oneself by giving the words of Scripture such a broad opinion wherever a contradiction between the Bible and "science " comes to light that they are in conflict with the prevailing opinions and misconceptionscoincide with the times. But it is all wasted effort, and the more they exert themselves in this regard, the more they contribute to obscuring the Scriptures.

"Mediation Theory" sounds like the 100 year old predecessor of the current theories (Rob Skiba et al) of the Nephilim being physical giants on the earth in a pre Flood era. Also perhaps what Roger Spurr means when he says entire continents are the carcasses of dead titans and cites Genesis, "there were giants IN the earth in those days," meaning that the earth was full of the carcasses of giants, perhaps the tohu va bohu, which could mean destruction, of Gen 1. Rob Skiba et al rely on The Book of Enoch to interpret Genesis this way, and Enoch is quoted in Scripture, though my understanding is that aside from one Ethiopian congregation, the book was lost to history until the 1700s. Did Luther have a copy to read? This narrative suggests not. I have to look into this, particularly the history of the book of Enoch, before I accept to much of the theories that stand on it as a source of history and science. A compelling book though.

Important distinction:

Cosmogony: the study of how the world came into being

Cosmology: the study of the world in which we live

We have done well as Lutherans by systemitizing our understanding of our cosmogony. But we have never systemitized our cosmology.

Pasche (@ p.90s) talks about how the early Copernicans had an unfinished model handed down to them by Copernicus, and they had to complete it with observations. But this was proving very difficult (much like with Darwin and Evolution). When theories came up that were faulty but potentially supporting Copernicus, they were glommed onto and praised and lifted up as the final piece of proof of Copernicus (much like in the evolution of Evolutionary thought), when there weren't final proves at all. They were gasps for air from a sinking worldview. Newton's theory of Gravity follows the same pattern. Unfinished at conseption, desperately attempted to be proven by the followers, weak experiments uplifted (think Cavendish Experiment), and secondary textbooks written to white wash the process of coming to the theories and conclusions that are presented as fact in textbooks and media outlets.

p.102 When asked by his friend Halley how he had made his great discoveries, Newton could only answer: "By constantly thinking about it." So not observing and investigating the real laws of nature, but mere speculation brought about the much vaunted laws of gravitation.

p. 139 "So I feel that every saying makes the world too narrow for me." --Marin Luther .

p.140 Luther quite rightly says of the natural scientists and astronomers: " They lie with full and sure force ."

p. 139....

Fixed rules that must guide a Christian in this

1) Man is the foremost of all creatures and the crown of creation.

2) The sun, moon, and stars, were created to serve our earth.

3) The Bible contains no errors, even where it speaks of things and relationships in nature and the visible world (to say the Bible only speaks about how to be saved limits the scope of the Bible. God also wants to speak to us about where we live)

4) Each passage of Scripture has only one sense intended by the Holy Spirit, the literal sense

5) The interpretation of Scripture, by whomsoever it is done, must be taken from Scripture itself

6) the Bible passage Genesis 1, 7 : "Then God made the firmament and separated the water under the firmament from the water above the firmament . "

p.154 But because this passage of the Bible runs so very counter to the views of almost all astronomers, Ptolemies, Copernicans, and whatever they are called, Luther writes the words: “We Christians must deal with others in these mattersopinion than the philosophers, and when something is beyond our comprehension, as here of the waters above the heavens, we must confess and accept our ignorance, rather than impiously deny and presumptuously interpret to Our own fancy. For we must keep the expression of the Scriptures, and abide by the words of the Holy Spirit, who took delight in distributing the created things, with the firmament in the midst, which was brought forth out of unformed heaven and earth, and through the Word was spread out so that there would be water above and below this fortress, which was also taken from that unformed mass." (Erl. Lat. I, p. 39.)

7) After the Fall, man cannot know nature any further than experience and divine revelation give.

8) Christians believe their God at his word, but in the face of human opinions they demand irrefutable reasons .

p. 170 An example of how little one can rely on the statements of those who are in the habit of posing as precise researchers in our time is the electrician Tesla, who has often been mentioned in recent years, and who in all seriousness blasted the news out into the world, he received a cable from the inhabitants of the planet Mars; his instruments in Colorado would have indicated the same with certainty. Like Tesla, so are unfortunately! now many investigators are too hasty and hasty when it comes to drawing conclusions and explaining a fact. Carried away by the mania for explanation, they cannot hold out until a reasonable explanation of the observed facts presents itself; in judging a phenomenon they are guided more by their favorite hypothesis than by the fact to be explained itself; and they particularly like to throw themselves into the arms of assumptions hostile to the Bible, make decisions quickly even where there are a thousand possibilities, and turn around carelessly, arbitrarily and thoughtlessly to a theory that appeals to them.

I love this list of 8 rules from Pasche. I also think it is imcomplete.

After rule six, before 7 and 8, I would add a systematized list of everything else God says about our cosmology, such as, the earth is firmly established, a circle (not a sphere), on pillars [therefore not a globe], with four corners, the stars are angels, God walks on the vault of heaven, his throne is positioned there as well, and I might add a point just to be clear: The Bible does describe a globe but contradicts such a model on every level.

p. 173 There is more at stake than that. The modern world view deals with the important question: who should be right, people with their theories or! God in His Word? Who do we want to believe, the almighty creator of heaven and earth or his creatures? Is the Bible's account of the origin and nature of the world based on truth, or does the Bible contain fables that are not based on truth? In short, who shall prevail, God or man, Bible or Babylon, faith or unbelief? verily! a big difference.

p.222-223 dr F. Pieper , Dictate on Baier I, chap. 2: " Every Christian must adhere to the Copernican system : 1. Scripture speaks correctly, both of spiritual and of natural things. — — 2. Scripture never speaks according to the erroneous ideas of the men, neither in spiritual nor in natural things. Every Christian must reject the rationalist theory of accommodation. 3. Every Christian, especially every theologian, takes care not to cite false principles of interpretation in Scripture. (This also includes the fact that no one sticks to the Copernican system with a bad conscience.) 4. It is particularly unworthy of a theologian to repeat what is unintelligible and even start a quarrel about it with fellow believers. "

Interesting quote from F Pieper that seems to contradict what he says in Christian Dogmatics. A rabbit hole I may go down, or not, to understand the issue here.

p. 234 FINAL CONCLUSION PARAGRAPH QUOTE: And Prof. Lindemann Sr. [editor - JCW Lindemann], Astronomical conversation between a lover of astronomy, etc., St. Louis, 1873: “I wouldn't give a damn who was right if they were only human opinions. But the wise and true God has spoken out on this matter in the Bible! The whole Holy Scripture is based on the view that the earth is the main body of the universe, that it stands firm , and that the sun and moon only serve it with light! What am I to make of this testimony of my God ?"

This book closes with an excellent rebuttal to copernicanism. But it does not and never does question the underlying ptolomeic lie that we are a ball. We stand firm, and do not spin, this book rightly concludes, but it fails to see that we are also NOT on a ball.

THE BIBLE AND ASTRONOMY

Pasche, F. E. Die Bibel und Astronomie. Milwaukee, Wis: Druck der Germania Publishing Co., 1906.

HELP FOR CONDUCTING LESSONS ACCORDING TO "PRACTICAL GEOGRAPHY"

Lindemann, Jr. Schulblatt, March 1906.

ENG MARCH 1904 P. 75-79

1910

FIFTY REASONS, COPERNICUS OR THE BIBLE. PHILOSOPHY AND VEIN DECEIT OR TRUE SCINCE? WHICH IS RIGHT? THE BIBLE AND PRACTICAL ASTRONOMY, OR THE BABEL OF THEORETICAL, PORTICAL NEWTONIAN FICTION: HERE ARE FIFTY REASONS FOR BELIEVING THE BIBLE

Pasche, F. E., Fifty Reasons, Copernicus Or the Bible. Philosophy and Vain Deceit Or True Science? Which is Right? The Bible and Practical Astronomy, Or the Babel of Theoretical, Poetical Newtonian Fiction : Here are Fifty Reasons for Believing the Bible. Morris Minnesota: F. E. Pasche, 1915.

interesting video of a non-Lutheran Christian Flat Earther coming across this book and praising it, and Schaller, the Wauwatosan, who wrote the introduction.

PROF. JOHN SCHALLER'S FORWORD TO F. E. PASCHE'S FIFTY REASONS: COPERNICUS OR THE BIBLE

Schaller, John. Forward to F.E. Pasche's Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible, 1915.

THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE

Stimson, Dorothy, The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe. Hanover, NH: Columbia Unbiversity, 1917.

P.102-103

1920

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS VOL. 1B

Franz Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, Vol. 1b. St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House, 1924.

A HANDBOOK OF RELIGIOUS INFORMATION, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY, DOCTRINE, WORK, AND USAGES OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD

Fuerbringer, L., Engelder, Th., Kretzmann, Paul E. The Concordia Cyclopedia; A Handbook of Religious Information, with Special Reference to the History, Doctrine, Work, and Usages of the Lutheran Church. St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House, 1927.

1930

THE LUTHERAN: GOD'S WORD AND LUTHER'S TEACHING SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY

Der Lutheraner, Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr vergebet nun und nimmermehr, Vol. 87. St. Louis, MO: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri, Ohio U. A. Staaten, 1931.

1940

1950

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS VOL 1

Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics Vol 1. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS VOL 2

Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics Vol 1. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS VOL 3

Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics Vol 1. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS INDEX

Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics Vol 1. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

1960

ACCENTS IN LUTHER"S THEOLOGY: ESSAYS IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 450TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REFORMATION

Heino, O. Kadai. Accents in Luther's Theology: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation. St. Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1967.

ENG P.84

1970

SOME TRUTHES OF SCIENCE

Sponholz, Martin P. "Some Truths of Science" Presented at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon, Wisconsin: March 7, 1979.\

THE STATE OF THE CHURCH IN RESPECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE

Becker, Siegbert W. "The State Of The Church In Respect To The Doctrine Of Scripture" The Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture and Antitheses, River Forest, Illinois, date unknown. [I'm guessing 1970s]

p.5 One of the most dangerous developments here in the theology of our day is the attack on the very meaning of the word “truth”. “What is truth?” they ask with Pilate and the answer they give is just as cynical as his question. The truth, we are told, is not to be found in propositional statements. Truth they say, is a quality to be found in persons and is not to be confused with factual precision nor to be sought in correspondence with reality

Truth can be put into propositional statements, but our words must be properly focused like a microscope. If we draw in too close to truth our words will be just as fuzzy and unclear as if we zoom out too much. Focus on the nugget of truth and not it's fractal qualities, and you will see truth for what it is.

p.6 When we have said all this, we must, of course, keep in mind that this does not solve every problem that we meet in our study of the Bible. We do not deny that there is such a thing as figurative language, but this does not give any man the right to read everything in the Bible as though it were figurative. If this were the case we should begin by apologizing to the Zwinglians and the Calvinists for our persistent adherence to the Real Presence. The statement “Herod is a fox” is a Biblical statement, and the man who would use such a statement to prove that the Bible is not factually correct is downright vicious. The Bible would be wrong and untrue if this statement did not correspond to reality, that is, if Herod had not been a sly and deceitful person but an open, honest, straightforward man. A little honest good-will here will soon place this problem of literal and figurative language into proper perspective.

p.6-7 The neo-orthodox definition of truth makes it possible for men to read anything they please into the Scriptures and to read out of it anything that does not suit them. One of the great contributions that Martin Luther made was this that he called the church away from the allegorical method of Bible interpretation back to the historico-grammatical exegesis of Scripture. Erasmus said that he preferred those commentators who departed farthest from the literal sense, and in this he was a spokesman for the theologians of his time. But Luther laid down that rule that “die natuerliche Sprache soll FrauKaiserin sein,” “the natural speech shall be empress”, in other words, the Scriptures shall be understood to say what the words mean. Luther does not say that everything should be read literally, but “naturally”, as it would ordinarily be understood.

p.7 We, who wish to stand foursquare for the doctrine of the truth and inerrancy of Scripture and who are justly displeased with those who want to say less than the Scriptures say, must also be careful not to read into the Scriptures more than they assert; nor ought we to make the mistake of claiming inerrancy for every interpretation of which we happen to be persuaded. If a man will admit, for example, that the sun really did stand still over Gibeon and that it did not go down for a whole day, I will be satisfied with his loyalty to Scripture. The mechanics of the miracle are not explained in the Biblical text. The explanation of the miracle ought not to degenerate into a debate between the followers of Ptolemy and the Copernicans. According to modern views, neither one happens to be right but even so, perhaps the movement of the heavenly bodies has nothing to do with the miracle at all. The same phenomenon might have been accomplished by a refraction of the light rays from the sun. We simply do not know how it was done and the method of the miracle ought not to become a matter for debate.

I like how Becker acknowledges that a literal interpretation of Scripture leads to a very different cosmology than what is commonly held today, and I am glad to see Becker acknowledge that both Ptolemy and Copernicus are incorrect. I think if we view the cosmos from a more literal interpretation of Scripture, we are on more solid ground, as we move into the new future open marketplace of ideas. Back to Scripture in a time of upheaval! What will you do when the tables flip and Copernicus is thrown out of our culture's bathwater, to be replaced by simulation theory, flat earth theory, ancient aliens theory, Jesus is French theory, et al??? Back to Scripture!

1980

FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT

Kipfmiller, David A. "Fighting The Good Fight David A. Presented to the pastors of the Capitol Circuit, meeting at St. Paul's Ev. Lutheran church in Marshall, WI September 21, 1982.

Today we are absolutely convinced that Ptolemy’s laws are wrong. We look to Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo (1564-1642) for the modern heliocentric view of our galaxy. But what about Ptolemy? Was he guilty of bad science? Not at all. His was the best science of the day -- and it lasted for 1500 years! Keep also in mind that his geocentric view was not easily overturned. Copernicus was, in his day, among the uninfluential minority; it took another hundred years before Kepler and Galileo could come up with enough evidence to change the mainstream of thought. Even then, Galileo was mercilessly attacked by the Roman Catholic church, branded as a heretic and almost burned at the stake! (Tying the Bible to science the church refused to accept any but the geocentric view which the Bible seemed to support. Today we have no problem with this. Is there a lesson for us here in history?) Surely we will admit that science has had a stormy and uncertain past. Ptolemy’s facts, his laws of nature, were accepted as divine truth and any tampering with them was considered heresy. Yet, these facts and laws were wrong, science tells us today. The sun, not the earth, is the center of our galaxy. The earth is not stationary in space but revolves around the sun. But before we criticize Ptolemy too much, keep in mind that his science did work. It fit in exactly with all the observations he was able to make. His science, his reality, was overturned, not because it was bad science, but because others, using better tools and interpreting the data from a different vantage point were able to demonstrate that their system and laws provided a better explanation for the workings of the universe. And this sort of scientific advancement is not limited to the past. We see the same kind of thing happening today.

pp4-5

LUTHER No reason is so firm that it cannot again be overthrown by reason. There is no counsel, no matter how wise, no thing, no edifice, no matter how magnificent or strong, which cannot again be destroyed by human counsel, wisdom, and strength. And this can be seen in all things. Only the Word of God remains to all eternity. (Tischreden, Weimar edition, I, 530. Translated by Siegbert Becker)

WALTHER The charge is indeed valid that in our efforts to lead the present unbelieving generation back to faith we make no attempt to demonstrate to the world the harmony of faith and science. But we see no reproach in this charge; rather we glory in it, and we will not, by the grace of God, permit anyone to rob us of this glorying. For we are very certain that it is not possible to help the present apostate world with the lie that the divinely revealed truth is in perfect accord with the wisdom of this world; only the preaching of the divine foolishness, of the old unaltered Gospel, can help the world. Paul as well as the history of the church of all ages and of every Christian testified that the “foolish Gospel” is the power of God unto salvation to all that believe, to the Jew first and also the Greek (Rom. 1:16) A person who has been won for Christianity by showing him that Christianity can pass the sharpest probe of science is not yet won; his faith is no faith. (as quoted by Pieper, I, 164)

WALTHER Though science may consider the results of its research as absolutely certain truths, we do not regard science, but the Scriptures as infallible. If the results of scientific research contradict the clear Scriptures, we are a priori certain that they are nothing but positive error, even though we are not able to prove them erroneous except by an appeal to the Scriptures. When we must choose between science and Scripture, we say with Christ, our Lord: ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and with the holy Apostle, ‘We bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:5). We do not wait for science to establish a foundation for us. We have it already; and prior to all scientific investigation and scrutiny it stands as firm as our God, who has laid it. The findings of science can neither give us the faith nor rob us of it. We stand on a rock; we know that not even the gates of hell, much less human science, can prevail against it. Therefore we laugh at all enemies and their scientific battering rams and siege artillery with which in insane rage they attack this rock towering over the turbulent waters of this world, towering as high as heaven. For thus says the Lord: ‘Whoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder’ (Matt. 21:44). (as quoted by Pieper I, 162- 163) (Emphasis mine - K)

PIEPER The Apostle Paul certainly knew his science and philosophy. But this same Apostle Paul would have us know that he never resorted in his preaching, even when dealing with a highly educated public, to scientific demonstrations. He would not offer his hearers such false props for their faith. He told the Corinthians: “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4-5). Our old theologians expressed this truth in the terse and pointed phrase: Theologia non est habitus demonstrativus, sed exhibitivus. That means: Christian theology is the ability to present, or preach, the Christian doctrine to the world; Christian theology does not attempt to prove its truth by rational or philosophical arguments. As for proving its truth, the Holy Spirit, united with the Word, takes care of that when He crushes secure hearts through the preaching of the Law and creates faith in the Gospel through the preaching of God’s Gospel. That absolutely settles the case. (Christian Dogmatics, I, 109) P.

EICKMANN Where God has spoken, reason must bow in submission, every thought must be subjected to the obedience of Christ. In this wise is our approach to all things directed and our attitude conditioned.. This attitude is the result of faith that we have in Christ Jesus as our Savior, faith that has been created by the Holy Spirit through the Sacrament of Baptism and the preaching of the Gospel of salvation. It is not a result of an ability to reason, it is in fact entirely unreasonable. Reason has been dethroned and faith in Christ enthroned as the guiding principle in our lives. This is the attitude with which we approach all things in life and therefore science also. (as quoted by M. Sponholz, “Idols of the Market-Place”, p. 9) S.

BECKER It is this that man must learn that true knowledge can be found only in God’s revelation, and God’s revelation is to be found only in Scripture. Because of man’s total depravity and blindness, he can never read the revelation of God in nature fully nor draw conclusions correctly and with certainty. God must come to our aid, but because of man’s weakness and sinfulness, the majesty of God must hide behind the masks in order to reveal itself. Men should take care lest in sinful pride and presumption they are offended by the lowliness of the masks and by the simplicity of Scripture. It is the crib in which we find the Lord Christ. And only as we find Him there, and God in Him, can we know all creation correctly. (as quoted by M. Sponholz, “Idols of. the Market-Place”, p. 8)

TWO TOWERS - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

Sponholz, Martin P. "Two Towers - The Relationship Between Science and the Bible" Presented at Minnesota District Pastoral Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota: April 20, 1982.

P. 1 There is no relationship between science and the Bible.

FACING EVOLUTION--THINGS TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME

Sponholz, Martin P. "Facing Evolution—Things Too Wonderful for Me" Date of Publication Unknown [but it cites two sources from 1982, one from Dec of 1982, so my guess is this was written as early as Jan 1983]

P. 1 When supporting scientific evidence for the Scriptures remains absent from man’s sight, what can the believer do? He may not live long enough to witness a change in scientific thought. What happens to the believer if he cannot refute overwhelming evidence in contradiction to Scripture? In the weakening battles of mental torment one may be tempted to doubt, to question God if He really made all things the way He says, and even begin to judge Scripture in the light of science. Why do God’s people find it so difficult to comprehend nature and unbelievers, blatant evolutionists denying even the presence of God, have such deep insights into nature? There must be contradictions in science if it is not in true agreement with the Bible. But when they cannot be found, why? What is wrong with the Christian’s mind? Why doesn’t God give him the answers he needs?

The questioning mind of the scientist clinging to God’s Word runs into real affliction of the mind and demands an answer from God. Why is Your Creation we live in so deceptive? Why do Your ordinances of nature remain so obscure? It is so difficult to demonstrate Your wondrous Creation and maintenance of it, at least the way You claim it was made and how it now is. Is it really that way at all? Show me! The afflicted soul demands an answer.

To see God's creation, we must remove all human lies from our minds first. This includes the globe lie. Then, with fresh eyes, we take literally the verses of Scripture which speak of our cosmology, and we observe with our own eyes, not hindered by lies, and we can see it. The earth is flat and stationary. This is the keystone, or lynchpin, toward a better cosmology.

Examples of what I mean. Sponholz did ice core drilling in Antarctica. The assumption is the the layers of ice are put down at a regular uniform way, a layer per year for ex, and so 13,000 foot deep solid ice cores indicate to the lied-to-mind that the ice is 10's of 1000's of years old, which contradicts young earth theory (under 10k yr). But if the lie that the layers indicate time is removed, then observations can lead to a better understanding of the ice that is present in God's Creation.

In Geology, the layers of sediment are assumed to be representative of epochs of time. But if we are living on the back of a turtle, they may be bilipid layers in the cell matrix of the turtle's carapace, and this theory actually has observations to support it (see Mudfossil University Roger Spurr)

p.3 The notion that science can approach truth with certainty is however, in fact, what permits the festering sores of doubt to grow deep into the believer’s faith.

p. 4 Nuclear physics and astronomy team together to announce agreement with evolution via the interaction of the most fundamental particles of the universe. Nuclear reaction in the stars agrees and embraces a five billion year old earth. Nobel Prize winners in physics with work on the development of equations relating gases and liquids, discontinuous structure of matter, discovery of sedimentation equilibrium, and discovery of 3.2° K background leave all of nature subject to random accidental motions of discontinuous matter. Eddington Numbers produce approximately the same universal constant—ratio of Coulomb force (electrical attraction) to gravitational attraction between electrons and protons, ratio of the square root of the mass of the universe to that of the proton mass, and the ratio of the age of the universe and a unit of atomic time. All these contain the accepted fundamental constants of the universe in the most respected field of physics. Again, the age of the universe plays an important role, and it comes out as the evolutionary billions of years.

All fields of science agree because they are all in the same pyramid of lies, where materialism is the capstone, under it the holy trinity of evil: Nuclear physics, astrophysics, and evolution. Under it are all the ologies you can imagine. The pyramid, under the watchful eye of materialism, only allows into the scientific community that which supports it's claim.

Remember this truth: Textbooks (secondary sources) often make claims not found in Research papers (primary sources). Many of the scientists doing the work, publishing papers, are reporting actually observations that are then twisted to fit a textbook's claims. See this video.

Why does God permit this confusion over His Creation? Nature, is supposed to show His glory, but to most scientists, it rejects His presence. And to the believer true science is withheld. Should we therefore abandon it? Curse science? It perhaps might be better if God had not given us such a scientific reason if it challenges the faith so devastatingly. Perhaps it’s best if we had not studied science at all. What good is scientific reasoning if it does not show God’s wondrous works, but evolution instead? “Why is light given to man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?” (Job 3:23) Why doesn’t God give us the correct answers?

Remove the scales from your eyes, the lies of this world, and you can see His glory clearly in nature again.

Sponholz goes on to show that Creationism, a hybrid of science and religion, is not the solution.

Sponholz goes on to show the argument that if man cannot harmonize Scripture and Science, then it is the man's fault. He says this is true, but also nonsense. It assumes that my interpretation of Scripture is wrong, but does not address a deeper underlying assumption that God's miracles of creation are observable by science today, after the fact. (Anyone observing Christ's post resurrection body without observing him die could scientifically observe and assume that Jesus never died.)

Sponholz goes on to show the argument that only science that is true agrees with Scripture. All false science disagrees with it. But this assumes God's truths can be backed up by man's reason and science, but this whitewashes the fact the the very underlying LAWS of science contradict God's revelation in Scripture. Call a pig a pig.

(in a diff papers, Sponholz makes the point that man wants to put more order onto creation than God put there. We want it to fit neetly in a box, a LAW, for ex. And we want things to line up better. For ex, God's day is 364 1/4 days, but we want it to be exactly 365 days, to an amount of hours equally divisible by a whole number of days. But God didn't make it that way.)

Sponholz then brings up Immanuel Velikovsky (the intro to Vel. video linked here mentions a contemporary scientific enemy of Vel. Edwin Hubble and Harlow Shapley that sounds like an interesting rabbit hole to follow another day....) Sponholz points out how Vel did a great job destroying Darwin's evolution (and video says Vel also destroyed Newton's gravity) but that he also mythologized Scripture when putting together his new paradigm. (I have not yet studied Vel's paradigm, though Roger Spurr mentions him a lot. My first assumption is that Vel probably should have destroyed Copernicus too??? I need read his paradigm...)

p.9 Men know from experience to a degree of certainty the materials and the form the materials take which gives us the environment we live in. But their purpose and motivesxiii for being brought into existence cannot be comprehended from experience

Sponholz is bringing up a point he has made in his other papers, that modern science only looks for two of Aristotle's four causes: formal and material. they do not look for efficient or final causes.

p.10 The Creator alone reserves the liberty to alter His day and night for the benefit of His people, you and me. But again how differently God speaks of day and night. Science, though confused as to whether light is of particles or waves, is certain its source is the sun and stars. God created light on the first day and the sun and stars were made to hook up to the succession of day and night four days later. Science defines darkness as the absence of light. But “God divided the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:4).

p. 10 “Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” (Job 38:17) Surely all who are born cannot escape death. It is the curse of sin. All suffer the loss of loved ones; especially Job deeply felt the cold absence of his ten children. Yet no one can comprehend death until you face it yourself in your own last hour. For the Christian Christ has graciously spared us the agony of death. Death now is but the anxiously awaited gateway to heaven. But modern-day medicine, with all the new gadgetry of respirators, heart pumps, intravenous feeding, etc., has made death a debatable issue. Truly and comfortingly, this is in God’s hand alone. He calls for the soul and it departs.

This is an example, in my view, of Sponholz not taking God's Words in Job literally. Sponholz' cosmology fails because the verses in Scripture where God describes his cosmology are from God's perspective. he doesn't speak to us from our perspective, a terrible lie of hermeneutics. So, when God says there are gates of hell present in this realm in which we live, meaning, you could walk there from here, then it is important to take God at his word and not allegorize him or say God is speaking in metaphor. Here it seems Sponholz is saying Job can't know what will happen after death because he hasn't died yet, but what God is telling Job is he can't know what will happen after death, because he hasn't yet walked down to the physical gates of hell and had the doors opened up for him. I think it better serves our paradigm to take literally every verse God speaks about the science of our cosmology. (of course we will want to fill in the blanks with more logic et al, once we begin to take God more literally, so be careful of the spirit of wetiko even then)

p. 10 “Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all.” (Job 38:18) The breadth of the earth is a measurement made as early as 200 B.C. by Eratosthenes of 250,000 stadia (10 stadia = 1 mile).

"Breadth" is a straight line, not a curved circumference of a sphere. Sponholz had said "There is no relationship between science and the Bible." but here is an example (before or after that paper in 1982??? unknown....

Sponholz makes the point, like Luther, that we cannot begin to understand all of God's creation simply through observation and revelation. There are some truths God has hidden. Nevertheless., natural science (seeking out the observable things of God) is a high endeavor.

My thoughts: Don't let the lies of scientism make you think you can see less than you can. Go out and observe nature! We can see with our own eyes the lies of modern scientism in cosmology, geology, biology, astronomy, all of it is lies. Laugh at the obserdity of the house of cards of science and go enjoy God's nature! We can know more than the liars claim we can know. We can see too far, for ex. Don't fail to go observe.

p.17 We will never understand why He permits success for laws of science that deny Him (evolution).

God sends the powerful delusion(s?).

p. 18 Science cannot be separate from theology. Science has no purpose and can achieve nothing without God’s blessings. The study of science has no value without being done to the glory of God.

Compare to first sentence of 1982 paper,

P. 1 There is no relationship between science and the Bible.

THE SAVING WATERS

Sponholz, Martin P. "The Saving Waters - Implications of the Noachic Flood from a Biblical and Scientific Standpoint" Minnesota State Teachers’ Conference, Trinity Lutheran School Belle Plain, Minnesota Oct. 16, 1986.

P. 1 What in modern science agrees with the biblical account of the flood? When examining the work of our contemporary scientists who are answering the questions about nature they themselves raise and who receive world-wide acclaim for their answers, I must conclude that very little in modern science agrees with the biblical account of the flood. This conclusion does not sit well with one who might insist that there is a “true science” or that the “laws of science are true, but evolution is just a theory.” These ideas were quite standard in conservative church bodies in the 1940s. These ideas have their roots in the previous century when physicists, for example, claimed to know all the laws.

P.3 St. Augustine developed a methodology that recognized God’s gift of truth as given in two “books,” the revealed Scriptures and the revealed experience of nature. Since both were of God, they both had to be true. Such an approach to knowledge did little for the hatred the early Christians held for a pagan understanding of nature during the few centuries after St. Augustine. During the Renaissance, from England to Prussia, it permitted Christian scholars to contribute much to the development of science and spawned the great scientific revolution led by Galileo Galilei. Today, however, the two book approach has led to the abandonment of the Bible, even where it speaks clearly of events in nature. The scientists’ explanation in most Christian circles reigns supreme over the Holy Word in things of nature.

P.13 Paul Feyerabend rejects the scientific method as the method that leads to discovery. In fact, he sees no special method used by scientists at all. Using the research of scientists in the past, particularly Galileo Galilei arguing for a Copernican world view, Feyerabend shows men of science using every trick in the book – propaganda, name-calling, appeals to authority, exaggerations, good data when effective and weak data when effective – all to persuade an audience to a certain point of view (Feyerabend, Against Method).

P.14 Science is not nature and science has limits, thus the theories and scientific explanations based on the truths of the Bible are still only theories of human beings. There is no Lutheran science, no creation science, but only science from human beings. If our science classes fail to show the historical nature of science and science as a human activity, then we are doing more for the evolutionist than the public sector.

P.14 It is an error to teach a brand of science in the name of Christian education that bears no relationship to the main stream of science in our society 15 without the historical knowledge that human beings have invented it.

P.15 It is far better to leave the complexities of the flood, particularly its physical origins such as the cause of the rains or the structure of the fountains of the deep, to the unknown. I personally reject extraordinary causes such as collisions of planets, secret or unknown magnetic fields, space oceans, nuclear reactions within the earth’s core or a sudden tilting of the earth’s axis.

P.15 Dwelling on science at the expense of learning the truths of Scripture can lead to error even when not intended.

P.16 We are not Calvinists who believe they need a reasonable explanation for all things. We are Lutherans who accept Scripture alone by faith alone. Where our reason cannot understand, we must accept the Word as true and leave the understanding to God.

P.16 God Himself asked Job the question we are asking about the flood. “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?” “Does the rain have a father?” (Job 38:16,28, NIV) Our submarines have gone to the bottom of the sea. Scientists have not found springs of the sea, but maybe by not finding them they have uncovered part of the promise that there never will be another global flood. The rain remains a mystery to this very day. Although all of us teach about the hydrological cycle of evaporation from the sea to condensation in the clouds with the large droplets falling as rain, when it comes down to the exact process of how it really works, it remains unknown. In the lab, under pure conditions, more than three hundred percent humidity is needed before condensation will occur without a particle of dirt being inserted. Where condensation nuclei have been used in the laboratory, cloud drops are readily formed, but droplet growth fails to develop to meet normal rainfall requirements. We do not know how the flood got started. We also do not know how it rains today. In view of the fact that we do not know how it rains today, why should we expect to know how the flood got started?

1990

TEACHING CREATION ACCORDING TO THE CREATOR'S REVELATION

Westendorf, James J. "Teaching Creation According To The Creator’s Revelation (Brief Look At The Scriptural Facts About Creation)" Metro South Pastoral Conference, St John Ev. Lutheran Church, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, March 27, 1995.

2000

2010

CREATION, SCIENCE, AND OUR APPROACH IN APOLOGETICS

Eggert, Arthur A. "Creation, Science, And Our Approach In Apologetics" 2015.