BiblicalInsights.net

The analogy drawn between Galileo (geokineticism or heliocentricism) and young earth creationists (YEC’s) is a false analogy.  This fallacy of analogy is made by John Lennox in Seven Days That Divide the World and Nobie Stone in Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center).
The following information is taken from Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org, 7/17/18).  Under the title, The Galileo Canard, we find, “In the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible?  The Church’s response to Galileo (1564-1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC) and other Ancient Greek philosophers.  It was Augustine (AD 354-430), Thomas Aquinas (124-1274), and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians.’ This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.  Confusion persists today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs. science, when it actually was a matter of science vs. science.  Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming.  This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the Big Bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.”
Jonathan Sarfati states, “Galileo has become the poster child for the alleged battle between religion and science, and the favorite example of those who believe that religion should be subservient to science” (Refuting Compromise, pp. 53-54). He continues, “The first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment. The prevailing “scientific” wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian Ptolemaic theory.  This was an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the center of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a pagan philosophical system. Conversely, the four leading pioneers of geokineticism–Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton,–were all young-earth creationists (p. 52).  Sarfati continues, “The church affirmed geocentrism because it was the prevailing science of the day and re-interpreted biblical passages accordingly.  Ironically, many people castigate YEC’s for supposedly making the same mistake as the church in Galieo’s day.  Yet the opposite is true–it’s the long-age’ compromisers and theistic evolutionists who are the true heirs of Galileo’s opponents, because both are making the same mistake of using current scientific ideas magisterially over Scripture” (pp. 53-54).
The false analogy involves this:  The Catholic Church interpreted Scriptures to prove a geocentric view and was wrong for doing so.  Young earth creationists are committing the same sin by interpreting the Scriptures to prove a young earth when in fact science shows that the earth is billions of years old.  The Catholic Church interpreted the Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (geocentrism).  Young earth creationists are not interpreting Scriptures to harmonize with the science of the day (Big Bang theory, evolution).  The analogy between the two is false!
Perhaps some clarification needs to be made since it is easy to equivocate on the word “science.”  Geocentrism can be falsified by observational science.  The Big Bang and evolution are based on origin science which is inferential science.  There are two different types of science involved.  Geocentricism gave way to heliocentrism due to observational science.  The Big Bang theory is based on inferential science and has never been observed (it is not subject to the scientific method).  Those who attempt to use the Galileo affair against young earth creationists are committing the fallacy of analogy (a logical fallacy).
Since this is true, then both works by Lennox and Stone are falsified.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center whose director is Charles Pugh III, continues to distribute Stone’s book worldwide through the internet.  This book teaches theistic evolution, agnosticism, violates sound logic and is permeated with self-contradictions.  We have now been informed that Nobie Stone is a staff writer for Sufficient Evidence, the journal published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.  How can any faithful Christian support the WCAC when they continue to use false teachers?  Please read my review of Nobie Stone’s book posted under the Book Reviews page on this blog.

Does a Christian have a dress code?  Nearly every establishment like a restaurant, jail or prison, school, community, even the zoo has a dress code for people.  While the Bible does not have a specific dress code for the physical body, it does have a dress code for the soul.  The adornment of the soul with godliness will influence and guide the dress code for the body (I Tim. 2:9-12).
One Definition of Modesty
Modesty is an inner attitude of the heart motivated by a love for God that seeks to glorify God through purity and godliness.  There are several important elements of this definition.  First, love for God must be greater than love for self or the desire to please others.  We need to show the world how great God is rather than how great we are!  Second, purity of heart must characterize the Christian.  “The pure in heart shall see God” –Matt. 5:8.  Christians should strive to keep themselves unspotted from the world (James 1:27).  Purity of heart means to be free from any admixture of evil.
Two Extremes to Be Avoided
The first extreme is extravagance.  Pretentiousness and showiness are to be avoided.  I Tim. 2:9-12.  Paul mentions braided (braided) hair, gold, pearls, and costly array.  James warns that this type of display could lead to respect of persons (James 2:3).
The second extreme is ungodliness.  Three words help to describe ungodly dress:  sensual, seductive, and sexual.  Dress that is provocative with regard to these three words would not reflect purity and godliness and therefore, would eliminate physical adornment of the body in this fashion.
Three Qualities of Heart That Produce Modesty
The first quality mentioned by Paul in I Tim. 2:9-12 is shamefacedness.  This quality denotes a sense of shame that draws back from sinful display or conduct.  When Adam and Eve knew that they were naked, they clothed themselves.  Later, God clothed them.  The parts of the body that have to do with sexual expression should be covered up.
The next quality mentioned by Paul is sobriety.  The word sobriety has to do with being sober-minded and self-controlled.  With full control of our mental faculties, we bring our bodies under the control of God’s Word.  This is spiritual discipline that counters impulsiveness. This reflects love for God and knowledge of His Will.
The third quality is godliness.  Godliness is right conduct in the sight of God.  When choosing what to wear outwardly, let God be the judge.  When we live in the fear of the Lord, we will not challenge God’s authority.  We will choose clothing that is God-pleasing rather than fad or trend oriented.
Modesty provides us with an opportunity for self-examination.  Look at your wardrobe and then look at your heart.  What does your wardrobe say about your heart?