#80499 - 04/27/06 07:03 PM
Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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: ]
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
#80509 - 04/28/06 08:10 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Princess of Pasadena
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2305
Loc: California
|
This is a very interesting thread. I'm enjoying the discourse between two deep thinkers -- a lawyer and a scientist -- on the topic of theology. [Whew!]
But the crux of the matter, it seems to me, is interpretation. Since I don't read either of you to be fluent in the original Biblical languages, it seems to me that each of you [us] is dependent upon translations (including the KJV).
Every Bible version is a translation, and is also an interpretation.
So. If we take the 28 Doctrines as a starting point, we can still find ample room for dis-agreement/-cussion/-course.
I enjoy your thread. I don't have the intelligence or training to dig more deeply than you both have gone; but I do admire your candor and your courtesy in expressing your positions.
BTW, this is the type of thread which keeps me coming back to C/A.
_________________________
Jeannie
...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80510 - 04/28/06 08:18 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: alisha]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Thanks Jeannie, that means a lot to hear.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80511 - 04/28/06 10:49 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 2844
|
Quote:
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.
The two passages are quite different. Joshua (the book) is concerned with the military conquest of Canaan, and is addressing an audience who would not have witnessed the events, probably one quite a bit later.
see for example Joshua 4:9
9 Joshua set up the twelve stones that had been in the middle of the Jordan at the spot where the priests who carried the ark of the covenant had stood. And they are there to this day.
The phrase "to this day" appears 12 times in the book of Joshua.
IN Chapter 10, Joshua is pursuing his enemy, and needs more daylight. He knows that God can control such things, and requests aid. The author simply records what was witnessed. Whatever the celestial mechanics involved, the sun appeared to remain motionless in the sky.
In Genesis 1-2, you have to ask several questions. Who was this written for? Why did they need it? Why discuss origins at all?
In that context, how would the audience have understood it?
If you want, we can go through all those steps, but the bottom line is this.
Yes, the seven days is a central feature. In a literary sense, it is the architecture of the passage. Yes, the audience for whom it was intended would have understood the seven days to be literal 24 hour periods. It is only our 19th century sensibilities that want to reject the seven literal days.
The entire Genesis account was actually 1)Revolutionary intellectually, and therefore 2) quite shocking.
Furthermore, whether scientists realize it or not, it is at the foundation of science as a discipline. And whether historians recognize it or not, it essentially invented history.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80512 - 04/28/06 11:10 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: alisha]
|
Registered: 07/14/01
Posts: 14161
Loc: Columbia, SC
|
Quote:
Jeannieb43 said:I'm enjoying the discourse between two deep thinkers -- a lawyer and a scientist -- on the topic of theology. [Whew!]
1 Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."
_________________________
"We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80513 - 04/28/06 11:51 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: alisha]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Jeannieb43 said:
a lawyer
Used to be a lawyer. I attended PUC, studied theology, had Greek under Fred Veltman (I still remember the cue cards on a big ring!), had classwork from Hardinge, Coffman, and others. After college and a little grad school, went to law school and became a lawyer. I practiced law for three years. Then, god called me to His work. I was a pastor for fourteen years. Currently, I am doing full-time evangelism, so I must deal with topics like this frequently.
Quote:
But the crux of the matter, it seems to me, is interpretation. Since I don't read either of you to be fluent in the original Biblical languages, it seems to me that each of you [us] is dependent upon translations (including the KJV).
If you mean fluent in terms of actually speaking the languages, I would agree. If you are speaking of doing exegesis, classwork does help, as do the requirements of presenting and defending Bible truth to a wide range of listeners and advocates. Personally, I do exegesis regularly. However, I feel that, on a forum like this, as well as in my work, necessarily, things must be made understandable, and it doesnt do a lot of good to speak jargon when you are hoping to help someone understand Bible truth! Whenever I do have to resort to the original languages here, I make a point of excerpting the articles from the lexicons which deal with the words, so that all may read for themselves.
Quote:
Every Bible version is a translation, and is also an interpretation.
What is your personal familiarity with the translation process? My familiarity is that several steps are involved, including exegesis and then, when necessary (hopefully as little as possible) interpretation. So, please clarify in what sense you mean interpretation.
Quote:
So. If we take the 28 Doctrines as a starting point, we can still find ample room for dis-agreement/-cussion/-course.
True, within certain parameters. As Seventh-day Adventists, we have been known as the people of the Book. As EGW repeatedly counseled, take the Bible as it reads.
I'm glad you enjoy the thread! I find it stimulating, also.
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80514 - 04/29/06 03:12 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 07/14/01
Posts: 14161
Loc: Columbia, SC
|
Something to keep in mind:
2 Tim 2:23 “Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, [why?] knowing that they produce quarrels.”
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80515 - 04/29/06 03:42 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Bunny]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 478
Loc: B,C.
|
"Strict Literalism"? Amazing how those snakes have survived all these centuries just eating dirt isn't it?
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80516 - 04/29/06 08:01 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
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.
I can't. That is after having carefully studied, and exegeted, all the pertinent Bible references. That is one subject which is either-or. can't be both ways.
Quote:
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.
Balderdash. The three schools of thought, and the rapture, all involve the 7 year tribulation period, which is absolutely unscriptural. As for the rapture, that is absolutely, categorically, unscriptural. Been down that road many times, been on the firing line. Very, very clear. But, how now . . . let's go for it. How about starting a thread on the rapture? I should be glad to participate.
But, the point is simply that yes, there is Bible truth, and that is what this church stands for. Not merely interpretations, but Bible truth.
Dave
Edited by David Koot (04/29/06 08:14 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80518 - 04/29/06 04:39 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Princess of Pasadena
Registered: 12/29/01
Posts: 2305
Loc: California
|
<<What is your personal familiarity with the translation process?>>
Only the experience of reading the Bible in many different translations. I don't claim the ability to personally supply the translations myself.
My "authority" for stating that all versions of the Bible are themselves translations (including the KJV) is either [or both] Jack Provonsha or Graham Maxwell. Their Sabbath school classes were so stimulating to me, back in the '70s and '80s. What I learned from those two Godly men was to study the Scriptures by taking the Bible as a whole--all 66 books; and by saying "But what does it mean?" rather than the "here a little, there a little" method of proof-texting your way to an answer.
I believe the Bible as a whole portrays a picture of God which is more loving and forgiving than that with which I grew up. My faith is not so rules-based now as then. But if I were raising children again, there would of course have to be rules. So it's just where I am in my Christian experience right now. [Speaking of age -- your professor Fred Veltman was in college when I was, at Southern.... So I'm O-L-D!]
Now I'm not prepared to give a total rundown of my understanding of the Scriptures, here and now. But it works for me. I don't spend a lot of time on the "pre-millenial vs. post-millenial" stuff. I'm just a simple Christian who believes, e.g., that God does not require a thousand years to judge each human being's worth, so He won't even take a thousand years to do it--BUT, since He wants all beings in the universe to understand why their loved ones are/are not in the Kingdom, for that reason He provides the Judgment at which time every eye will be able to see for themselves the lives of the judged.
_________________________
Jeannie
...Change is inevitable; growth is optional....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80519 - 04/29/06 04:55 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: alisha]
|
Registered: 07/14/01
Posts: 14161
Loc: Columbia, SC
|
Quote:
Jeannieb43 said: What I learned from those two Godly men was to study the Scriptures by taking the Bible as a whole--all 66 books; and by saying "But what does it mean?" rather than the "here a little, there a little" method of proof-texting your way to an answer.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80520 - 04/29/06 05:20 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: alisha]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Jeannieb43 said:
My "authority" for stating that all versions of the Bible are themselves translations (including the KJV) is either [or both] Jack Provonsha or Graham Maxwell.
Without a doubt, all versions of the Bible are translations. What I was addressing was the issue of 'interpretation' vs. 'translation.' All translations of the Bible are not accurate. In fact, every single one of them contains inaccuracies, which arise in some cases from 'interpretation,' a step beyond pure exegesis. Judgment calls must be made by translators. That is where interpretation comes into play. The more accurate versions minimize interpretation, but are not entirely free from it. Those students who are able to go back to the original do have an advantage. They can get beyond the interpretation, and it is truly amazing what crops up when that is done!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80521 - 04/29/06 09:12 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Summary Statement
This discussion has wandered through a wide variety of perspectives and approaches and issues, and that's fairly natural because it's a big topic that connects to a large number of issues. I thought there might be some value in clarifying where I think we're up to at this point and a possible direction for an on-going conversation. Of course this is not in any way limiting on others or on the direction of the discussion, but I hope it's useful.
Exegesis
Those who know, and who I respect as having the necessary knowledge and skills, including Ed Dickerson and David Koot, are pretty clear and convinced that the Biblical account can really only be read and understood one way - as describing a literal 6 days, each 24 hours, for the creation week. I'm happy to accept their word on that (but if Ed, for example, wants to post the kind of detailed exegesis he does so well on this point that would still be a great contribution).
That leaves us in a more awkward position than if it were possible to read the Bible account as being consistent with a longer period of creation, because it places the scientific and the biblical evidence in direct contradiction - accepting one requires us to reject the other. Or does it? (see below)
Either way, I don't see a lot of point in continuing the discussion about Biblical understanding/interpretation/exegesis, since the conclusion is already clearly laid out.
Science
Some have asserted that interpreting the scientific evidence is entirely a matter of basic assumptions, and that all of the evidence can be equally well accounted for with a recent 6 day creation as with other basic assumptions. Others have taken a different approach, and said that if the evidence seems to suggest a longer age or different mechanisms, so much the worse for the evidence - the Bible is the standard.
I think there's still an interesting discussion to be had here in which those who do think that the scientific evidence is important, and do think that it is interpretable in ways consistent with a recent creation, discuss that evidence in a scientific way, albeit one that includes the existence of miraculous events.
I want to find a synthesis that respects the Bible and still does not require me to falsify or ignore the things I see in the world around me. I do consider that God is revealed in his Creation as well as in the Bible. I haven't yet been convinced that it is possible to be serious about science (understood as the study of the natural world) and accept a literal 6 day creation that happened relatively recently... and what you seem to be telling me is that I may have to choose between science and my faith... or understand science in a very different way.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80522 - 04/29/06 10:10 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Once again, Herr Professor, I would be very interested to knkow, and I think it might be very pertinent to an answer, to know your axioms and assumptions in regard to this issue. What are they?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80523 - 04/29/06 10:38 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Which issue would that be? The scriptural one or the scientific? If the scientific, then:
1. Miracles occur
2. Miracles are not able to be studied by science, although their residue might be
3. None of us were around for the creation of the earth or any significant portion of its history, therefore we are reliant on the accounts of other for part of it and on evidence from nature for other parts
4. Evidence from nature requires some assumptions to be made
5. There are ways of 'triangulating' different sets of evidence against one another that help to improve accuracy and check assumptions
6. Scientific evidence must be taken seriously by anyone who wishes to make claims in the realm of natural law. (Please note that by 'scientific evidence' I do *not* mean the conclusions of scientists, I mean the data and the methods)
I think that's about as well as I can do in providing a comprehensive set of basic assumptions in relation to science and how we deal with evidence.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80524 - 04/30/06 07:44 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Thank-you, Bravus. That is very helpful information. So then, analyzing these items, the 'residue' of miracles might be observable. We are reliant on accounts of creation and evidence from nature. Evidence from nature requires some assumptions to be made. Triangulating different sets of evidence against one another is an accuracy check. "Evidence" includes the data and the methods of observation and interpretation.
Permit me to follow up, then. The source of the conflict between recent creationism as described in Gen. 1, and DArwinian evolutionary theory? Does it not consist in the following?
1. The DNA tree;
2. The geological column;
3. Radiometric dating.
How may the DNA tree be synthesized with Gen. 1? Conversely, why couldn't it be? Why would it not be consistent with the idea of a Creator designing different organisms on a common platform?
As for the geological column:
Firstly, in order to intelligently evaluate this issue, please be so kind as to summarize the assumptions underlying the concept of the geological column.
As for radiometric dating, please do the same. Once we can take a look at the assumptions, then we can evaluate any possible synthesis with Gen. 1.
Thanks.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80525 - 04/30/06 08:18 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
How about we put the DNA issue aside, since as you've noted, at the level of expertise at which we could discuss it, it wouldn't provide a discriminating test: every similarity can be explained by either scheme.
I'm willing to spend some time looking at the geological column, although I'll be learning the stuff from scratch, and Bevin I think knows more about it than me.
You've been promising to bring the case against radiometric dating and long ages for a couple of weeks now, so why don't you go ahead and do that.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80526 - 04/30/06 08:53 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
This Wikipedia article provides a pretty decent introduction to the topic. (Yes, I know what Wikipedia is and isn't, but one of the things it often is is a useful place to start.) Reading that carefully seems to suggest that in a way it reduces to the radiometric dating problem, since that is what is now used most definitively to date the geological layers. There is a level of triangulation provided by fossils at the various levels. Am I correct in understanding that the flood is most usually advanced as the creationist explanation for all of the features of the geological column?
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80527 - 04/30/06 04:52 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
You've been promising to bring the case against radiometric dating and long ages for a couple of weeks now, so why don't you go ahead and do that.
I am hoping to hear back from Dwight Hornbacher, the geologist in Texas. I had emailed him previously, but he has not yet responded. I also know that Ted (Iron Deacon) knows him and works with him, and Ted is a scientist (chemist) in his own right. Looking for Ted on this forum, but haven't seen him recently. My plan was to ask these scientists to speak directly to these issues. If I don't hear back, then I will have to dig in my storage files to find the presentation by the other geologist, which seemed to quite effectively refute the long-age ideology.
But, apart from that, it would still seem important to list the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based. At least, there would be something to start with.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80528 - 04/30/06 05:06 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Am I correct in understanding that the flood is most usually advanced as the creationist explanation for all of the features of the geological column?
That is not my understanding. I would think that the flood would have the effect of locally displacing the layers, as far as rock strata are concerned. I have had an interest in astrophysics over the years, and so have no problem with the idea that planets may have existed for billions of years in an "empty and unproductive state." The recent, miraculous formation of life ("He spake, and it was: He commanded, and it stood fast") is the issue. In regard to the fossil record, that would seem to be a result of a suden, cataclysmic event such as a GRGF. BTW I also recognize that God could have created the planets--and stars--mature, as well. Would that be a huge lie? Not at all. Simply a decision to create something already formed. The fact that such a miraculous event would not fit in with man's theory of long-age evolution, would not be the fault of the Creator. Mankind does love to invent theories and fit everything into neat little 'boxes.' Harrumph!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80529 - 04/30/06 05:43 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
This Wikipedia article provides a pretty decent introduction to the topic. (Yes, I know what Wikipedia is and isn't, but one of the things it often is is a useful place to start.)
Yeah, I read the article. A good survey of the idea for a sixth-grade science class. The ASSUMPTIONS of the theory are what I am particularly interested in. One of the basic ones, stated in the article, is that layers at a lower level are older than layers in a higher level of strata. That seems significant. And therein lie some problems with the theory, I submit, due to discovery of inverse layers. The Wikipedia article explains that away as 'displacement' of layers. HOWEVER, THAT too is an assumption, and, as well, assumes the validity of the theory itself. There may be other causes of the layers being 'inverted.' I also noticed the article's reference to 'problematic' fossil discoveries. Hmmmm. They don't fit neatly in the 'box.'
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80530 - 04/30/06 07:52 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Couple of things responding to various points in your posts above: 1. Given your comfort with an ancient but lifeless universe, how do you account for the creation of the sun and moon in the creation story? Seems to me we're back to the title of this thread. 2. Creating something mature would presumably not include implanting a fossil sequence that looks strongly as though it progresses from less complex to more complex organisms. If the only thing to be accounted for in the geological column was the layering of the rocks and the effects of millions of years of erosion, the 'ancient earth, recent life' model would fit, but it's the locations of the fossils in the rock layers that is perhaps the single biggest obstacle for someone like me who would *dearly love* to accept recent creationism, but finds this difficult to understand even with the 'mature earth' hypothesis. 3. Basic assumptions of radiometric dating: a. certain unstable elements decay, with the release of alpha or beta particles and gamma rays, to form different elements b. although each individual decay event is random, the pattern of many such events is highly predictable statistically. The time taken for half of all the atoms of the 'parent' element in a given sample to decay to form the 'daughter' element is called the 'half-life' for that element and is known for all naturally occurring radioactive elements and many man-made elements c. assuming the 'daughter' element is not itself radioactive, and assuming we know the starting quantities of the two elements in a sample, a simple comparison of the proportions of the two elements will tell us how many parent atoms have decayed, and therefore, knowing the half-life, how long the decay process has been going on. (for radioactive daughters, there is a recognised track to the next decay, so age determination is still possible but more complicated) I do not believe it is tenable to posit a changing speed of light. There was some work in that area but it is strongly discredited, and involved fitting rather fanciful curves to very limited data. Additionally, a far higher speed of light 6000 years ago would have the effect (among others) of accelerating radioactive decay to such an extent that all life on earth would be fried. This is not a fundamental assumption, just a rebuttal to one possible challenge to radiometric dating. http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/
Edited by Bravus (04/30/06 07:53 PM)
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80531 - 05/01/06 02:17 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
The ASSUMPTIONS of the theory are what I am particularly interested in. One of the basic ones, stated in the article, is that layers at a lower level are older than layers in a higher level of strata. That seems significant. And therein lie some problems with the theory, I submit, due to discovery of inverse layers. The Wikipedia article explains that away as 'displacement' of layers. HOWEVER, THAT too is an assumption, and, as well, assumes the validity of the theory itself. There may be other causes of the layers being 'inverted.' I also noticed the article's reference to 'problematic' fossil discoveries. Hmmmm. They don't fit neatly in the 'box.'
Well, I would think that 'lower level layers are older than higher level layers' is actually trivial. After all, it's pretty hard to lay down new layers of sediment *under* the old ones! That doesn't in itself say *how much* older, though - it could be seconds, minutes or millenia.
The idea that the layers don't just lie there, but sometimes get pushed up or down by earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic drift and so on... or even flipped over, seems pretty uncontroversial too.
I think your last sentence is revealing: the 'box' that scientists understand was never neat or simple in the first place. There isn't really such a thing as a single, full layer 'geological column' sitting there undisturbed in one geographical location. the 'column' is a concept that pulls together information and evidence from all over the world. Its general outlines are clear and fairly consensual, but there are definite arguments about the details.
One of the basic misunderstandings that creationists bring to these discussions is the idea that discussions and the lack of complete consensus and certainty among scientists in relation to a theory impeaches it completely. As Bevin has pointed out, that's just the way science works... the continuous effort to challenge and improve its own methods by challenging its conclusions.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80532 - 05/01/06 06:23 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
1. Given your comfort with an ancient but lifeless universe, how do you account for the creation of the sun and moon in the creation story? Seems to me we're back to the title of this thread.
By way of background, I am taking into consideration findings from the field of astrophysics. One significant discovery, seems to me to be the discovery of the Doppler shift in the spectra of distant celestial objects. This was first recognized by a Dutch astronomer, Maartens, at Cal Poly, using the Hale reflector. More recent observations have indicated that the farther away objects such as galaxies, quasars, etc., are, the faster they are traveling AWAY from our viewpoint.
Another item is the structure of a galaxy. If you recall, Chandrasekhar theorized the existence of what would later be called 'black holes,' as a young scientist. Sir Arthur Eddington shut him down cold. Decades later, however, Chandrasekhar and others revisited the subject, and recent discoveries using the 'Chandra' X-Ray telescope have pretty well confirmed the general outlines of the theory. At the center of this and other galaxies are black holes. The powerful gravitational forces of the black holes help hold the galaxies together, and account for the spiral arms and the swirling formation often observed. A 'black hole' is the final stage of a star of sufficiently large mass (called the 'Chandrasekhar limit') to morph into a black hole rather than a white dwarf, as the star becomes denser and denser. (The nuclear fusion engine starts to run down, and gravity overpowers the thermal energy of fusion. Both options are the final stages of stellar evolution ('evolution' meant in a different sense than Darwinian evolution--simply the life cycle of a star) ) This life cycle can span billions of years.
How does all this relate to God's Creatorship? The Bible suggests that the heavens and the earth wax old, but that God recreates them. The Bible also says that God created the stars also. (Gen. 1) I accept the possibility that God created the universe untold billions of years ago.
How about the Earth, and this solar system? How could the Earth exist in any state (Genesis 1:2 indicates a "barren and unfruitful state,) without being in orbit around a star? A planet does not simply hurtle through interstellar space. How about the craters on the moon? (interesting viewing with a 10-inch diameter telescope and a 2-inch widefield eyepiece, such as I have)
These are questions which I am unable to answer. There are other fields of study which also have such questions: for example, the mystery of the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. I recognize, 'thus far and no farther.' I recognize the limits of my understanding, and I am willing to, as far as mindset goes, 'take the shoes off my feet,' for the place where I stand is holy ground.
May I suggest that areas such as these may be real tests of faith, and of our willingness to accept what God has said? Not unlike the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We should recognize that we are creatures, that our knowledge is very imperfect, and be willing to trust God, even though we can't understand how it could have happened.
Quote:
2. Creating something mature would presumably not include implanting a fossil sequence that looks strongly as though it progresses from less complex to more complex organisms.
That, precisely, is where the assumptions of a theory come into play. 'Fossil sequence'? From what I have read, heard presented, and seen photographic evidence of, that whole assumed progression has been upended. THAT seems to be one of the causes of discomfort for some who previously bought into long-age evolution.
Yet, setting aside the issue of such a 'progression,' one should examine the process of fossilization. It has been too many years since I studied the requirements for that to occur. Perhaps you could refresh my memory? I seem to recall that tremendous pressure, in the absence of oxygen, applied instantaneously, is required. Is that correct?
Quote:
Basic assumptions of radiometric dating
Thank-you for the info about radiometric dating. Am I correct in thinking here, that a number of assumptions would have to be made about the origin and history of the sample? And, would assumptions need to be made about the levels of solar AND short-wave radiation in past ages?
Quote:
I do not believe it is tenable to posit a changing speed of light.
Such a thing would, indeed, seem rather preposterous.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80533 - 05/01/06 06:35 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Well, I would think that 'lower level layers are older than higher level layers' is actually trivial. After all, it's pretty hard to lay down new layers of sediment *under* the old ones! That doesn't in itself say *how much* older, though - it could be seconds, minutes or millenia.
The idea that the layers don't just lie there, but sometimes get pushed up or down by earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic drift and so on... or even flipped over, seems pretty uncontroversial too.
The issue I have, is the apparent lack of objectivity. IOW observations of strata in a different order, are attributed to 'inversion' or some localized phenomenon. That ASSUMES that the theory about the sequence is fact. What if it is not fact, but instead, the layers may be in varying sequences? I mention this, having seen the presentation by a geologist, including photographic evidence of that very thing.
Quote:
I think your last sentence is revealing: the 'box' that scientists understand was never neat or simple in the first place.
That was my reflection after reading the Wikipedia article. They have lined up their ducks in a row. That is their 'box.' Problem is, the facts don't agree. But, proponents of the theory make judgment calls in choosing to explain that in ways that still support the theory. Doesn't seem very objective. At what point do you determine which, if any, were in fact the older layers? On what basis?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80534 - 05/01/06 06:39 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Sounds like we have a good basis to continue the discussion. I'm not sure about the fossilisation mechanisms - will need to look into it. On these questions: Quote:
Am I correct in thinking here, that a number of assumptions would have to be made about the origin and history of the sample? And, would assumptions need to be made about the levels of solar AND short-wave radiation in past ages?
Yes, to the first, no to the second. That is, assumptions about the initial states of the rocks are necessary. The incoming radiation in the past is not relevant because the radioactivity of the rocks does not come from being irradiated but from the radioactive substances included in the rocks.
Oops, just realised we might be confusing carbon dating (in which the incoming radiation *is* relevant for making carbon-14 that is ingested by living things), and the methods used for dating rocks... My answer refers to the long term rock dating methods.
Edited by Bravus (05/01/06 06:47 AM)
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80535 - 05/01/06 06:42 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Oops, just realised we might be confusing cardon dating (in which the incoming radiation *is* relevant for making carbon-14 that is ingested by living things), and the methods used for dating rocks... My answer refers to the long term rock dating methods.
Yes, C-14 is what I was thinking of.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80536 - 05/01/06 06:49 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
OK, that makes sense. C-14 is almost irrelevant when we're talking about the age of the earth, though, because it only goes back a few thousand years (well, maybe 30-40 thousand max).
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80537 - 05/01/06 07:10 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
As for the age of the earth, I have no problem, from an exegetical standpoint, with an 'old earth.' The Hebrew word is 'bohu.' Here is what NIDOTTE has to say about its occurrence in Gen. 1:2:
"The language of the Genesis account of creation can be described as a demythologization of ancient creation accounts . . . In Genesis precreation chaos or void is not a sea monster but is a desolation of waters; the expression tohu vabohu in Gen 1:2 is a hendiadys meaning an unearthly or indescribable emptiness. This would seem to be a creative application of the concept of an uninhabitable empty wilderness to the disordered state before creation . . . Tsumura, on the basis of lexical and discourse analysis, concludes that the phrase tohu vabohu in Gen 1:2 describes a state of "unproductiveness and emptiness," the initial state of barrenness that was not yet productive as it would come to be (41-43)."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80538 - 05/01/06 07:16 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 6023
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
OK, I'm not even really going to belabor this point: you know what you believe and where you stand. But it seems to me that the creation account for Day 4 is every bit as explicit and every bit happens within one 'yom' day as much as any other day. Nothing else is created on Day 4 but the sun, moon and stars. I'm not sure how it's consistent to insist very strictly on the events of every other day of creation but have a different explanation for this one day.
_________________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
| |
