Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?

You are not logged in. [Log In] unOFFICIAL WORLDWIDE ADVENTIST FORUM » Forums » Bible, Theology and Related items » Origins » Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?

Page 1 of 17

...

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#80499 - 04/27/06 07:03 PM Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6023 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	I posed the question to David Koot in another thread: Quote: Is it ever possible in any circumstance that we'll look at the world, look at our interpretation of the Bible, and decide that we've interpreted the Bible incorrectly? He felt the question was outside the scope of that thread and suggested opening a new one, so here we are. I used the example of Joshua 10, which describes the sun standing still. Because we're all heliocentric these days (for reasons based in science) we read this as a subjective, rather than a scientific, description of that event. But those interpreting the Bible at the time of the Galileo trials around the issue of geocentrism vs heliocentrism used Joshua 10 as evidence that the Bible teaches geocentrism. That's in response to statements like this one from David K: Quote: Either a person accepts the Bible as it reads, as the final authority for one's life and understanding, as the standard by which all else is measured, or . . . Anything short of that results in the alternative, which is that something else--whether the Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy, or the theories of evolutionists are on the same level or even above the Bible. If we, as Christians, adhere to the First Fundamental Belief of Seventh-day Adventists, in regard to the Word of God, then on that we take our stand. If we consider ANY other source of information as equally authoritative, then, by doing so, we are rejecting the supremacy of the Word. One would do well to get off the fence. A point I'm trying to make in these discussions - and that people are either not seeing at all or are refusing to acknowledge - is that when people say "the Bible is always used to test science, rather than vice versa", they're missing a piece. What they're really saying is "our interpretation of the Bible is always used to test science". So I'm never arguing that the Bible is wrong, I'm arguing that our interpretation of the Bible can be inaccurate... and sometimes, as in the case of heliocentrism, our observations of the world around us might help us to correct our interpretations. Or do people still wish to maintain an absolutely strict literalism - and therefore embrace geocentrism? Edited by Bravus (04/27/06 07:37 PM) _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80500 - 04/28/06 06:49 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* I used the example of Joshua 10, which describes the sun standing still. Because we're all heliocentric these days (for reasons based in science) we read this as a subjective, rather than a scientific, description of that event. But those interpreting the Bible at the time of the Galileo trials around the issue of geocentrism vs heliocentrism used Joshua 10 as evidence that the Bible teaches geocentrism. The Bible does not teach geocentrism. Joshua 10 does not teach geocentrism. Quote: A point I'm trying to make in these discussions - and that people are either not seeing at all or are refusing to acknowledge - is that when people say "the Bible is always used to test science, rather than vice versa", they're missing a piece. What they're really saying is "our interpretation of the Bible is always used to test science". A proper understanding of the Bible may be developed on two levels: firstly, without a knowledge of Biblical languages. it is clear on its face, in regard to the great questions of life, salvation and origins. secondly, with a knowledge of Biblical languages. The great doctrines of the Bible are revealed in all their glory, as one carefully examines the original text. 'Interpretation' gives rise to a whole raft of speculations. Often, it is grounded in careless study and treatment of the Word. Once again, I pose the question which I posed on the other thread, and which you didn't answer. Is our Biblical understanding and faith primarily a matter of interpretation? Is it okay for one person to 'interpret' the Bible as supporting no literal Sabbath for NT Christians, and for another person to 'interpret' the same Bible as supporting a literal Sabbath? How about the State of the Dead? How about the Second Coming vs. the Rapture? Is it okay to be satisfied with one's 'interpretation'? Is there no absolute truth in Scripture? Is Scripture merely a 'case book' which gives general guidance, but is not to be relied on for accuracy? And, of course, as far as the 'remnant church,' are the fundamental beliefs of SDA's matters of interpretation, which people are a liberty to accept or ignore, with no consequences to themselves-to simply respond, 'that's not my interpretation'? How about it? Quote: Or do people still wish to maintain an absolutely strict literalism - and therefore embrace geocentrism? that is a non-sequitur, because the Bible does not teach geocentrism.
Top

#80501 - 04/28/06 06:58 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6023 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	1. Explain how saying 'the sun stood still' is not geocentric. If the Bible was talking scientifically, shouldn't it have said 'the earth stopped rotating'? But science was not the purpose of the story, so it was told as it was. I'm saying the same applies to the creation account. You need to argue why the two scriptures are different, not just dismiss the difference based on your 21st century scientific knowledge. 2. Once again, you are claiming that your own understanding of the Bible contains zero interpretation, but others' understandings do involve interpretation. That seems to me an arrogant perspective. You haven't answered my question about whether you could ever, in any point, be wrong about what the Bible says. Are you claiming infallibility? 3. My best answer to your question about interpretation is to say that I can't see any other way of thinking about Scripture except as something requiring understanding - otherwise why are we enjoined to 'study'? If it's so simple, why do we have to work at it? I submit that it's because it's not simple. As I said above, the fact that people differ may not be ideal, but it's inevitable, and it's hubris to think that the reason people differ is because they're all wrong and you're right. Edited by Bravus (04/28/06 07:01 AM) _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80502 - 04/28/06 07:10 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* 1. Explain how saying 'the sun stood still' is not geocentric. Absolutely. The reference is to the sun's not setting. That does not suggest geocentrism. You and I both no doubt refer to the sun rising and setting, today. Weather sites list sunrise and sunset times. We are not geocentric. Quote: 2. Once again, you are claiming that your own understanding of the Bible contains zero interpretation, but others' understandings do involve interpretation. Please quote from my post, where I made such a claim, either about my positions, or those of others. Quote: You haven't answered my question about whether you could ever, in any point, be wrong about what the Bible says. Are you claiming infallibility? I recall your asking about an understanding of the Bible, as opposed to scientific theories. Is that what you are referring to? As for you question here, this is not the classroom. I must also comment about the tone of your question. I simply don't think it appropriate to respond. Nor was my post focused on my personal positions. You seem to be attempting to turn it in that direction. That is a debating tactic, I understand that, but I don't think it is helpful. Quote: My best answer to your question about interpretation is to say that I can't see any other way of thinking about Scripture except as something requiring understanding - otherwise why are we enjoined to 'study'? If it's so simple, why do we have to work at it. I submit that it's because it's not simple. As I said above, the fact that people differ may not be ideal, but it's inevitable, and it's hubris to think that the reason people differ is because they're all wrong and you're right. Study is important, for the purpose of developing an accurate understanding of Scripture. Once again, turning the focus away from me personally and back to the question I originally posed, about the remnant church--and which you have not yet answered. Are Seventh-day Adventists, who claim to be God's remnant church, wrong in their belief in Bible truth? Is it all a matter of personal interpretation? What is your answer?
Top

#80503 - 04/28/06 12:04 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6023 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	I believe the Seventh-day Adventist church has a very strong, very well-founded set of beliefs, based largely on the Bible, and that perhaps in many ways it is closer to complete agreement with the Bible than many other Christian denominations. I do not believe it is in complete and perfect agreement with the Bible in all points, and I do believe that it is in need of continuous study and an openness to new light. My question is not so much based on a focus on you as on questioning the broad statements you keep on making about 'the Bible or science, pick a side'. I'm simply trying to get you to recognise that what you're actually saying is 'my understanding of the Bible or science', and perhaps to reflect on whether your understanding of the Bible is yet complete. I do think we're stuck on the issue that, as you have stated in the other thread, you are 'appalled' by attempts to understand that do not fit your existing undersatnding, and regard such attempts as heresy. There is therefore no basis of common ground for continuing an inquiry... and I don't need to be branded a heretic for daring to think out loud here. OK, let's aim to keep it civil - we've done so pretty well so far for an origins debate! (This is an admonition to myself as much as an encouragement to others, and I do apologise if I haven't phrased things right and have come off as hostile. That's not my intention.) Edited by Bravus (04/28/06 01:25 PM) _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80504 - 04/28/06 04:13 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* I believe the Seventh-day Adventist church has a very strong, very well-founded set of beliefs, based largely on the Bible, and that perhaps in many ways it is closer to complete agreement with the Bible than many other Christian denominations. I do not believe it is in complete and perfect agreement with the Bible in all points, and I do believe that it is in need of continuous study and an openness to new light. But we're talking about fundamental beliefs. Let's focus on just a few of those: the inspiration of Scripture as stated in Fundamental Belief # 1, the existence of God and the Trinity as stated in # 2,3,4,5, the Gospel, the seventh-day Sabbath, the Second Coming, the State of the Dead, the Millennium. Simply stick with those, for now. Do you believe those statements of fudamental belief, to be fundamental Bible truth? Quote: My question is not so much based on a focus on you as on questioning the broad statements you keep on making about 'the Bible or science, pick a side'. I'm simply trying to get you to recognise that what you're actually saying is 'my understanding of the Bible or science', and perhaps to reflect on whether your understanding of the Bible is yet complete. The problem is that what you present as your understanding of some of these passages is not grounded in what the passages themselves say. It is not only speculation, it is inconsistent with the text. You have not presented a credible, verifiable basis on which to give serious consideration to your proposals. Quote: I do think we're stuck on the issue that, as you have stated in the other thread, you are 'appalled' by attempts to understand that do not fit your existing undersatnding, and regard such attempts as heresy. That is not what I used the word 'appalled' in regard to. It was your methodology. Here is a quote from my post, following the word "appalled": "The basic picture which comes across, very honestly, is carelessness in handling the Word." THAT is the issue. An accurate understanding of something needs to be based upon, and consistent with the facts. That is a separate issue from the question of 'heresy,' which my comments did not address. I would simply say to use the same carefulness in handling, studying and understanding the Bible, ss you might in observing data and conducting an experiment in the laboratory. Edited by David Koot (04/28/06 04:22 PM)
Top

#80505 - 04/28/06 04:38 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6023 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	Quote: Let's focus on just a few of those: the inspiration of Scripture as stated in Fundamental Belief # 1, the existence of God and the Trinity as stated in # 2,3,4,5, the Gospel, the seventh-day Sabbath, the Second Coming, the State of the Dead, the Millennium. Simply stick with those, for now. Do you believe those statements of fudamental belief, to be fundamental Bible truth? Inspiration of Scripture - yes, although what inspiration actually looks like in practice is not a simple thing. For example, either you or Graeme extended the concept to include inspiration of the readers as well as the writers. Does that come within the doctrine. But yes, the doctrine that Scripture is inspired is scriptural. Existence of God - yes. The Trinity - our understanding is necessarily partial and metaphorical. The true nature of God trancends us, but the notion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is scriptural. The Gospel - yes. (but it might need more definition) The Seventh-day Sabbath - yes. The Second Coming - yes. The state of the dead - yes, but the story of the rich man and Lazarus, from Jesus himself, and other texts mean that this is an area in which there is interpretation required. That is, the over-all picture from Scripture is, I believe, correct as SDAs describe it, but I can see how others come to different conclusions. The millennium - pre, post or a-millenial... there are thoughtful Christian scholars who fall into all three camps and others besides. The Adventist approach is plausible but not water-tight. Other doctrines such as the rapture also seem to have some Scriptural support. _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80506 - 04/28/06 04:47 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* For example, either you or Graeme extended the concept to include inspiration of the readers as well as the writers. Does that come within the doctrine. Please provide the actual quotation. That doesn't sound like anything I said, nor do I recall reading that in Graeme's posts.
Top

#80507 - 04/28/06 05:07 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6023 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	OK, yeah, I may have read that into your statement that inspiration meant the Bible transcends time - on re-reading I see that that's not what you said or meant. Withdrawn, yer Honor. _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80508 - 04/28/06 05:17 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Let the record reflect that counsel has withdrawn his statement.
Top

Page 1 of 17

Hop to:

Vegefood store

Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.