Science Vs. the bible

[Thinkingstuff]

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of the literal interpretation of scripture. Since you quote J.I.Packer take a look at this:


http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html

I agree with this point he makes

God’s Word is not presented in Scripture in the form of a theological system, but it admits of being stated in that form, and, indeed, requires to be so stated before we can properly grasp it—grasp it, that is, as a whole
An analogy may help here. A versatile writer with didactic intent, like Charles Williams or G. K. Chesterton, may express his thought in a variety of literary forms—poems, plays, novels, essays, critical and historical studies, as well as formal topical treatises. In such a case, it would be absurd to think any random sentence from one of his works could safely be taken as expressing his whole mind on a subject with which it deals. The point of each sentence can be grasped only when one sees it in the context, both of the particular piece of work from which it comes, and of the writer’s whole output. The task of interpreting the mind of God as expressed in His written Word is of the same order as this, and must be tackled in the same way.

However, often people don't take the bible this way. Such as in what manner can the 6 days of creation be taken? Scientifically? Not seemingly so. As a novel then? Still with insite into his creation? By which often this aspect of Packer's discource is often neglected

In other words, Scripture statements must be interpreted in the light of the rules of grammar and discourse on the one hand, and of their own place in history on the other.

Or the writing by the observer observance rather than a clear notion of God forcing pen in hand to write verbatum what God wants. Note that Packer shows this problem of understanding scripture

This ‘literalism’ is founded on respect for the biblical forms of speech; it is essentially a protest against the arbitrary imposition of inapplicable literary categories on scriptural statements. It is this ‘literalism’ that present-day Evangelicals profess. But to read all Scripture narratives as if they were eye-witness reports in a modern newspaper

which he agrees is insufficient but how many here approach the varied text with regard to everything to include interpreting science.

 

[Revmitchell]

he agrees is insufficient but how many here approach the varied text with regard to everything to include interpreting science.

He does not make your point. Don't take his words and place them where he does not. But then I do not have an agenda to use scripture to prop up evolution.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He does not make your point. Don't take his words and place them where he does not. But then I do not have an agenda to use scripture to prop up evolution.

I'm not proping up evolution. That is only perception. I'm questioning the nature of inspiration as I've noted before. And with regard to inspiration he does make my point. Scriptures need not be a science manual but a library of differing types of books that tell the story of salvation at the different intervals which God has revealed himself. Not as a dictaphone but as a conductor of an Orchestra men participating within their capabilities but operating a larger work which God has conducted or inspired. Note Packer means literal by this definition

namely, that Scripture is to be interpreted in its natural, intended sense, and theological predilections must not be allowed to divert us from loyalty to what the text actually asserts.

However my argument heges on the natural indended sense is not what many here make of it. As science Journal like those in Kentucky who often work hard at portraying the bible in this manner.

 

[Aaron]

Then a rose is not a rose and can be defined by any other name.

Like the Rose of Sharon? You cannot impose your narrow, twentieth-century thoughts on the passages of Scripture. Your thoughts must be defined by them.

 

[Revmitchell]

However my argument heges on the natural indended sense is not what many here make of it. As science Journal like those in Kentucky who often work hard at portraying the bible in this manner.

You mischaracterize those you disagree with. Whether that is intentional I do not know but it is not certain to me one way or the other. Just because we hold that where scripture speaks on science it is accurate and true does not mean that it is being used or even seen as a science journal. That rhetoric seems to be more of a political type tactic rather than honest discussion.

 

[Aaron]

You have to remember the target audience. They didn't have the technology to make paper.

This is a huge assumption.

The stories were passed down verbally until Moses' time.

The Lord spoke unto Moses.

There was no way for them to understand that the moon reflected the sun's light and wasnt a primary source of light from itself. What they would have understood was that the moon was a 'lessor light'.

Didn't the moon have phases in ancient times? They knew the moon did not generate its own light.

 

[Aaron]

Contrary to your supposition it says God made "two lights" which denote source and independence.

You are really thick.

Usage is what defines a word. Even in modern usage, the word light is not limited to the object that generates light. It can refer to a myriad of indirect lighting sources. You're imposing your arbitrary, narrow assumptions on the words of a better, more knowlegdeable man.

The real elephant in the room is that the bible is writen by men who wrote what they observed as they understood it in their context.

They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Therefore if they misunderstood how something actually functions will it not be evident in their writings? Of course.

You have no idea what they understood or didn't. Language is descriptive. Are you saying you never use the words moonlight or sunrise?

So how does that affect your view of how God inspired the bible? In fact that alone show God did not dictate the bible but used men in their circumstances with their limited knowledge at the time to write God's inspired word like a conducter conducts an orchestra.

No it doesn't. Moses was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, but their superstitions did not find their way into the Penteteuch. God dictated the Creation account. He dictated the law. He showed Moses the pattern for the Tabernacle. Bezalel's skill was a gift of the Holy Ghost, not a natural talent.

There is account after account that raises men of God above the constraints of their environments and the superstitions of their cultures.

 

[Aaron]

Why for instance is there no record of slave hebrews leaving Egypt in Egyptian records? Why is there not one single archeological find of the wandering in the desert?

For the benefit of the non-sceptic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

Or why isn't there enough water in the world to cover the entire planet including the tallest mountains? Where did the excess water go?

Beyond notThinking's arbitrary assumption concerning the physical features of an antedeluvian world, the Bible answers this question.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are really thick.

Tsk Tsk. Insults are the lowest form of whit. Funny how you immediately engage in this form of contest. A habit with you I've noted. No one has insulted you I would appreciate it if you would engage in civil debate.

In the Hebrew language as well as the english language the usage indicates 2 distinct independent sources of light. Plain language. Period.

They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No doubt.

You have no idea what they understood or didn't. Language is descriptive. Are you saying you never use the words moonlight or sunrise?

Language is pretty discriptive and they've discriptively shown their understanding of the observation rather than how it operates beyond the knowledge of the observer. Of course they used those terms. However, its irrelevant to the said passage.

No it doesn't. Moses was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, but their superstitions did not find their way into the Penteteuch. God dictated the Creation account. He dictated the law. He showed Moses the pattern for the Tabernacle. Bezalel's skill was a gift of the Holy Ghost, not a natural talent.

Where do you think the term Seraphim come from? Based on the Egyptian goddess seraph that protected Pharoah's throne.
God did dictate the law but not all of scripture and as far as Bezalel's skill who is to say natural talent isn't a gift of the Holy Spirit?

There is account after account that raises men of God above the constraints of their environments and the superstitions of their cultures.

Have you notice how God never gives technilogical or scientific information beyond the ability of writer of the text? Since, these documents were writen in the bronze age how could they have known about Nuclear Fussion. Yet God doesn't elaberate on that but only informs them up to their ability to understand. That also is telling.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For the benefit of the non-sceptic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

Beyond notThinking's arbitrary assumption concerning the physical features of an antedeluvian world, the Bible answers this question.

Where? then does the bible say it goes? It says down. Are you implying that the water went into the mantle? Also as far as Moses its telling that the article you post indicates the truth

It is true that there is no evidence for Moses, the ten plagues that fell upon Egypt or the exodus ‘at that time’

Other words suppositon without fact.

 

[Aaron]

Have you notice how God never gives technilogical or scientific information beyond the ability of writer of the text?

I've noticed no such thing. This gigantic leap in logic hinges on two arbitrary assumptions : 1) That you know the state of the technology of the ancients, and 2) That you know what Moses or any of the other biblical authors knew.

You cannot possibly know these things.

Very little is actually known of the ancients, and recent discoveries are shattering long-held assumptions based on a Darwinian world view.

The fact of the matter is that the supposed scientific difficulties you've posed are really no difficulty to people who know what they're talking about. The more limited an individual's knowledge, the more difficulty he has with things he does not understand. When you add the individual's pride and idolatry into the mix, then his conclusion is that the difficulty isn't himself and his stunted mentality, but the supposed ignorance and superstition of the biblical authors.

Professing himself to be wise, he becomes a fool.

You should have titled this thread Scientists Vs. the Bible, because true science is not juxtaposed against the Scriptures.

 

[Marcia]

I was wondering how some of you would answer some of these questions. I'll start with a simple question.
The bible says

Supposing the Greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon. Note the moon isn't a light source like the sun or the stars. It does not produce its own light but reflects the sun's light. Therefore this narrative seems off in that two great lights were made. In reality, One great light was made and an object that reflects the great light was made. How do you answer?

or When it is clear that rabbits don't do this. They don't chew the cud.

Please make use of the NET Bible online. They have very good footnotes plus if you click on the verse itself, you can see the breakdown of words. For "rabbit" they have "hare" and say this:

probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud,
exact meaning is unknown, and best left untranslated as "arnebeth"

Many words for animals in the Hebrew were unknown to translators, and so you have often find these terms translated differently. This should be basic knowledge for the Christian about the Bible.

The moon would have seemed to be a lesser light to anyone - and it still is, even though we know it reflects the sun. But for much of the time, it is a light. One can see on nights when the moon is full or almost full although it clearly is not as bright as the sun.

Interesting that God does not use the words for "sun" and "moon." That is because the sun and moon were being worshiped and God is revealing that He created them. It is a slap in the face to those worshiping the sun and moon.

That's also another reason to call the moon a "lesser light."

 

[Marcia]

It certainly isn't a very direct way of saying sun or moon is it?

The early portions of Genesis use a highly stylized almost poetic Hebrew form.

The author could have used the word for the sun (has-sem-mes) or the moon (hay-ya-reh), they certainly were available and are quite common in the rest of scripture. It suited God’s purpose to use the words he used in Genesis.

Rob, see my comments above. This was a way to put down the sun and moon gods.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not proping up evolution. That is only perception. I'm questioning the nature of inspiration as I've noted before. And with regard to inspiration he does make my point. Scriptures need not be a science manual but a library of differing types of books that tell the story of salvation at the different intervals which God has revealed himself. Not as a dictaphone but as a conductor of an Orchestra men participating within their capabilities but operating a larger work which God has conducted or inspired.

As I said before - it was well within Moses' graps to see that God made the Sun and the Moon on day 4 -- but he was not informed on HOW God made them - not given the manual on "how to make a sun" not given any info at all in fact on the subject of nuclear fusion.

God's intent was to convey the point that He is the creator of the Sun and the moon and that it was done on day four of creation week - and that it was done in a literal "Evening and morning - the 4th day".

Beyond that information - God did not give more details.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
When modern man looks up into the sky at night - and sees the full moon shining at full strength - DOES he see a "light"? yes!

Does he see that light "in the sky"? yes!

Is it the brightest light he sees at night in the sky even though it is not the "bronze age"? yes!

DOES the text say "the lights are INDEPENDENT of each other"? No!


DOES the text say that both sun and moon are "lit by nuclear fusion"? No!

Does the text address HOW either of the "LIGHTS" are shining? No!

Are you still missing the "elephant in the room" when it comes to the science point regarding the making of both the Sun and the moon in a single 24 hour day after plants were made? yes!

Contrary to your supposition it says God made "two lights"

Actually I think the comment I made above - is pretty clear on that point.

The real elephant in the room is that the bible is writen by men who wrote what they observed as they understood it in their context. Therefore if they misunderstood how something actually functions will it not be evident in their writings?

There is no "how it functions" in the text for making the Sun and the moon.

No mention at all of "nuclear fusion".

I have stated that point repeatedly.

Of course. So how does that affect your view of how God inspired the bible? In fact that alone show God did not dictate the bible but used men in their circumstances with their limited knowledge at the time to write God's inspired word like a conducter conducts an orchestra.

Close

We can show a 10 year old a video depicting the 7 days of Creation week all happenning in seven literal days. The 10 year old can SEE the "sequence" (bronze age or not). The 10 year old can even "report" the sequence.

But they still do not know much at all about nuclear fusion for the sun.

So the real elephant isn't whether or not plants were around before photosynthesis but on the nature of the inspiration itself.

I agree that man is relating what God showed -- as the 10 year old would do it - or a 90 year old would do it etc.

God seldom gets into the "HOW I did it" -- He usually sticks with "THAT I did it" and so when Joshua commands the Sun to stand still - the Bible tells us that this is what happened for an entire 24 hour period - but it does not tell us HOW God did it.

It does not say for example "God caused the great turtle that holds up the earth to move backwards so that the sun appeared to be still" as if the intent was to explain "HOW" God did something.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But there is an interesting example in the case of Jacob -- who was using the superstition of his day to cut striped poles and have the sheep mating in view of striped rods to produce spotted and speckled offspring.

In a dream God shows him that it is God that is brining about the desired result and not the poles. (ok that part was easy) but then the text goes on to show that the trait for spotted or speckled or solid patterns was actually being determined by which males were mating.

This was a level of genetics that Moses did not have.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually I think the comment I made above - is pretty clear on that point.



There is no "how it functions" in the text for making the Sun and the moon.

No mention at all of "nuclear fusion".

I have stated that point repeatedly.



Close

We can show a 10 year old a video depicting the 7 days of Creation week all happenning in seven literal days. The 10 year old can SEE the "sequence" (bronze age or not). The 10 year old can even "report" the sequence.

But they still do not know much at all about nuclear fusion for the sun.



I agree that man is relating what God showed -- as the 10 year old would do it - or a 90 year old would do it etc.

God seldom gets into the "HOW I did it" -- He usually sticks with "THAT I did it" and so when Joshua commands the Sun to stand still - the Bible tells us that this is what happened for an entire 24 hour period - but it does not tell us HOW God did it.

It does not say for example "God caused the great turtle that holds up the earth to move backwards so that the sun appeared to be still" as if the intent was to explain "HOW" God did something.

in Christ,

Bob

We agree on some points here and it seems you've been influenced by Terry Pratchet. Which is ok in my book.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But there is an interesting example in the case of Jacob -- who was using the superstition of his day to cut striped poles and have the sheep mating in view of striped rods to produce spotted and speckled offspring.

In a dream God shows him that it is God that is brining about the desired result and not the poles. (ok that part was easy) but then the text goes on to show that the trait for spotted or speckled or solid patterns was actually being determined by which males were mating.

This was a level of genetics that Moses did not have.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, you make a good point here.