My point was that while we generally don't believe now that the Bible teaches geocentrism, yet historically it was considered a Biblical teaching that came into conflict with scientific discoveries of that day.
Having pointed out that historical misinterpretation of the Bible on a scientific matter, I propose that we should take care not to make the same mistake on the scientific/Christian debates of this day.
The Bible's purpose is not to provide scientific revelation, but revelation of God and His righteousness. But the creation account of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is probably the most significant part of the Bible that seems to be making some definitive scientific statements, as well as the more general revelation that God is the Creator of the world and the entire universe. As for definitive scientific statements, I wonder whether we are reading it right, and specifically believe that the young-earth interpretation isn't reading it right.
My point was that while we generally don't believe now that the Bible teaches geocentrism, yet historically it was considered a Biblical teaching that came into conflict with scientific discoveries of that day.
Having pointed out that historical misinterpretation of the Bible on a scientific matter, I propose that we should take care not to make the same mistake on the scientific/Christian debates of this day.
The Bible's purpose is not to provide scientific revelation, but revelation of God and His righteousness. But the creation account of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is probably the most significant part of the Bible that seems to be making some definitive scientific statements, as well as the more general revelation that God is the Creator of the world and the entire universe. As for definitive scientific statements, I wonder whether we are reading it right, and specifically believe that the young-earth interpretation isn't reading it right.