Well, it's not, at least in the literal sense.
At least not in the sense they were interpeting the Bible.
He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible.
Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues Look, your revisionist articles make up their own truth
The FACT is that Galileo made a 30X telescope, trained it on the Moon and saw craters. When he showed the carters to the Vatican officials they said it was an illusion created by the devil; they said the moon did not have any craters. It's the bible, not the science that pretends to be the "official truth."
And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?
The Vatican officals were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one.
The truth is, and some people can't handle it, that the myth of Genesis is irreconcilable with evidence of life forms predating humans, and evidence of human species, the same way that the craters were incompatible with the biblical notion of "heaven" being the sky above and all the objects there being "perfect spheres."
There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.
It is all conjecture and hypothesis, taken on more faith than one takes the Genesis account. (professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
The Bible is compatible with science but not in the literal sense. Science cannot prove the Creation never happened! If anything, science can only reveal ever smore the greateness of God. Our narrow minds and fantasy tend to create myths that only distort the Creation.
He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible
It doesn't.
Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials
Correct. However, the Church imposed on both scholars a requirement to state that their work is mere speculation and not the way things really are (because we can never really know how things are and all that jazz...). This "disclaimer" appears in all their books at the very beginning.
Well, as it turns out, it is the way things are (as far as humans are concerned).
And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?
How could it, when one cannot seen them with a naked eye? Bible authors had no way of seeing the craters or strange "appendages" (as gailleo called unresolved Saturn's rings in his small telescope).
The Church believed, however, that the sky above was the "heavens," an erroneous belief that comes straight from the Bible.
Since the Church maitained that only that which is pure/perfect can be in heaven, the 'logical' conclusion was that celestial bodies were also perfect anfd without "blemishes."
The Vatican officals were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one
No, they were just making 'logical" conclusions based on Biblical assumptions.
There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.
And your definition of "real" is?