A
frequent visitor to my blog left a comment where he alluded to
biblical passages that speak of the earth not moving (geocentricism).
He didn't cite a specific verse but this isn't the first time I've
heard that criticism so I'm aware of certain passages which are
frequently cited in support of that claim. Perhaps the most
frequently cited is 1 Chronicles 16:30:
Fear
before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be
not moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)
At
first hearing, this criticism seems to have legs (for any Bible
critic reading this, I'm using an expression. The criticism doesn't
“literally” have legs). The genre of 1 Chronicles is historical
narrative – unlike Psalms which is Hebrew poetry. So when we read
a passage like 1 Chron 16:30 in the midst of historical narrative, it
seems as though the Bible might literally be saying the earth does
not move. A quick look at the context, however, quickly dispels that
notion.
First
off, the passage is clearly introduced as a psalm (i.e. “song” or
“prayer”) of David. 1 Chron 16:7 says, “Then
on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into
the hand of Asaph and his brethren.”
Like the book of Psalms, the passage uses poetic descriptions to
convey spiritual truth – not necessarily literal truth. In the
same passage (v. 32-33) David says that the sea “roars,” the
fields “rejoice,” and the trees “sing.”
Why
don't the same critics who allege this passage endorses
geocentricism, also assert the Bible teaches that trees sing? It's
because they know that people will immediately recognize trees
singing as an obvious use of metaphor. Yet they still quote v. 30 as
though it's meant to be a statement of fact. This is a clear case of
quote
mining where critics cite a passage out of context in order to
make it sound like the Bible says something that it clearly does not
intend.
Another
thing we must be careful to consider is what is meant by the use of
the words like “world” and “earth.” Often, when these words
are used, they are not referring to the physical earth but the people
of the earth. This is demonstrated in the same verse in question. 1
Chron 16:30a says, “Fear
before Him all the earth.”
Do you think this means the literal “earth” should fear Him or
doesn't it more likely mean the people of the earth? It could mean
the literal earth in the same sense that the “fields” rejoice.
On the other hand, it could also mean the people of the earth. The
Bible does use the words “earth” and “world” in that sense;
Here are some indisputable examples where
this is so:
And
I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their
iniquity.
(Isaiah 13:11a)
And
it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(Luke 2:1)
For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
(John 3:16)
In
these passages, and others, the word “world” clearly means the
people who live in the world. No one, for example, could rationally
argue that Luke 2:1 means that the literal earth (that is, dirt and
rock) is going to be taxed.
We
also must ask what is meant by “not
moved.”
The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary”
and that is what the critics who cite this passage claim it
means. However, “not moved” can also mean “not
moved from its course”
or “unpersuaded.”
Psalm 21:7 says, “For
the king trusteth in the Lord, and through the mercy of the most High
he shall not be moved.”
I'll ask you: does this passage mean the king is stationary or does
it mean that he should not be moved from his trust in the Lord?
In
conclusion, remember that this is a psalm. In a poetic passage that
says the Lord established the earth that it should not be moved,
would it be entirely unreasonable to interpret that to mean the Lord
established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will
not be moved from the way He established? What is unreasonable is
that critics (whether intentionally or by ignorance) ignore the clear
context of a passage and assert the correct interpretation of an
obvious use of poetry is that it is meant to be literal fact. It's
no wonder that critics see the Bible as rife with errors. They
obviously have trouble reading.
