[Springfield Reformer]

Also, the treatment of Galileo was due to his rewriting the Bible, not his science. Copernicus was a monk and had none of the problems that did Galileo.

That appears to me to be quite an inaccurate assessment of what happened. From his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina:

He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood. And thus at the end of his letter of dedication, addressing the pope, he said: “If there should chance to be any exegetes ignorant of mathematics who pretend to skill in that discipline, and dare to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the authority of some scriptural passage twisted to their purpose, I value them not, but disdain their unconsidered judgment. For it is known that Lactantius—a poor mathematician though in other respects a worthy author—writes very childishly about the shape of the earth when he scoffs at those who affirm it to be a globe. Hence it should not seem strange to the ingenious if people of that sort should in turn deride me. But mathematics is written for mathematicians, by whom, if I am not deceived, these labors of mine will be recognized as contributing something to their domain, as also to that of the Church over which Your Holiness now reigns.”

Available here:  http://inters.org/galilei-madame-christina-Lorraine

He spends other efforts trying to reassure his contemporaries that he is NOT introducing a new domain of knowledge, independent of Scripture, that could somehow trump Scripture. Rather, he is making the argument that Scripture and science, when both are "rightly understood," must be in harmony.  Where this runs afoul of Roman epistemology is that the the understanding of Scripture as propounded by Rome might have to be adjusted when science and Scripture conspire, as they did here, to demonstrate that Rome was in error on this matter. While it is true that geocentrism was not formal Roman dogma, it was nevertheless the conventional orthodoxy of the day, and questioning it appeared to be questioning the Church herself. This is what was truly unacceptable.

For a good chronology that shows how this all unfolded, and how it did indeed revolve (if you will pardon the expression) around Galileo's confirmation of the Copernican thesis with sound physical evidence, and NOT around his efforts to allegedly "rewrite the Bible" (which latter assertion now appears to me to be revisionist history, and not at all aligned with the facts as we know them), please see the following:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html

However, if what you say is true, you should be able to supply specifics on how he attempted to edit Scripture.  Perhaps copies of the modified manuscripts, or primary sources describing their specific contents. What have you got?

Peace,

SR

[RobbyS]

Galileo’s views were Platonic but were taken by the Aristotelians to be Pythagorean, in part because he made assertions that were not fully supported by the facts in hand. Further, we should not forget that his science was far more hypothetical than Newton’s. Finally that even Newton’s physics had some assumptions such as force at a distance which seemed and seem to go against the common sense notions of cause and effect.