Climbing Mount BIAS!

[laptoppop]

Your interpretation of the six days of Genesis is not supported by Scripture, but by a fallible human standard of literal interpretation. There is nothing in Scripture which tells us that the passage must be interpreted literally or otherwise. Most non-literalists would be of the opinion that you are ignoring cues which suggest that the literal interpretation is not appropriate. Just as you suggest that non-literalists are ignoring cues which suggest the literal interpretation is appropriate. But there is insufficient evidence in scripture to decide who is correct.

There is sufficient evidence in creation to conclude that a literal interpretation is not appropriate in this case. Why should we ignore that any more than we ignore the evidence for heliocentrism?

Of course, there are quite a number of intelligent, learned, careful, wise believers who would take exactly the opposite position.
-lee-

 

[KerrMetric]

Of course, there are quite a number of intelligent, learned, careful, wise believers who would take exactly the opposite position.

But the relative numbers of the two groups are quite disparate if you really apply the words intelligent, learned and careful.

 

[laptoppop]

I was tempted to respond with a joke

Instead I will point out the obvious - truth is not determined by a vote.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I was tempted to respond with a joke

Instead I will point out the obvious - truth is not determined by a vote.

no, but a vote or even counting noses is a legitimate piece of the evidence to be used to help you decide what is truthful and what is not.

 

[theFijian]

Your interpretation of the six days of Genesis is not supported by Scripture, but by a fallible human standard of literal interpretation.

The only word that comes to mind is, Wow! I mean Wow! No really Wow!

Perhaps you finally understand...or perhaps it's just another facetious remark.

 

[gluadys]

Of course, there are quite a number of intelligent, learned, careful, wise believers who would take exactly the opposite position.
-lee-

Oh, indeed. But they are intelligent, learned, careful, wise believers who have been too intent on other things to use their talents in the fields of geology, paleontology, population genetics and biological evolution.

And the most intelligent, learned, careful and wise believers I know, whose theological insights, pastoral concern, and spiritual guidance I deeply respect are wise above all in this: they do not claim to be able to form a valid opinion of science that they have not studied.

If you can show me someone who takes the opposite position and can defend his/her position on a scientific basis, be my guest. But be warned: the usual suspects will not do. I can give you a list as long as my arm of the names creationists usually cite and whose work I have already investigated and found to be full of holes, theologically as well as scientifically.

 

[KerrMetric]

I was tempted to respond with a joke

Instead I will point out the obvious - truth is not determined by a vote.

True but throughout human history majorities of those educated in a particular area tend to be correct more than minorities especially if the statistics are 99.9% to 0.1%.

Sure, the lone voice has been correct at times and we have some famous examples of this but the reverse situation where the lone voice is that of a nutcase is far more common. I would also argue that in recent times the occurrences of the tiny minority turning out to be correct have become less and less frequent - certainly this is the case in my field science.

 

[vossler]

no, but a vote or even counting noses is a legitimate piece of the evidence to be used to help you decide what is truthful and what is not.

I wonder if that's what Moses and the Israelites were thinking when he heard the account of the twelve?

 

[steen]

How is that relevant?

 

[laptoppop]

True but throughout human history majorities of those educated in a particular area tend to be correct more than minorities especially if the statistics are 99.9% to 0.1%.

Sure, the lone voice has been correct at times and we have some famous examples of this but the reverse situation where the lone voice is that of a nutcase is far more common. I would also argue that in recent times the occurrences of the tiny minority turning out to be correct have become less and less frequent - certainly this is the case in my field science.

Yes...UNLESS the field of science is using a methodology which by definition excludes the supernatural. If you define that God is not a part of something, then that's what you'll prove. If God is real, He can act in real history.
-lee-

 

[gluadys]

Yes...UNLESS the field of science is using a methodology which by definition excludes the supernatural.

The point of science is to discover natural explanations for natural events--if such explanations exist. Admitting supernatural explanations would defeat the very basis of science. What science does is help us clarify under which circumstances God uses supernatural means and under which circumstances God uses natural means.

God is not required to use supernatural means because you want it so.

If you define that God is not a part of something, then that's what you'll prove. If God is real, He can act in real history.

Here you jump to an erroneous conclusion. Defining the natural means by which something happened is not saying that God is not a part of it. Excluding supernatural explanations does not exclude God, who is also the author and sustainer of natural processes. By and large instances claimed as God's action in real history do not involve the supernatural. What supernatural means, for example, did God use to place David on the throne of Israel?

 

[shernren]

Again, I agree. The only point I would make here is that the heliocentrist interpretation didn't conflict with the Bible either.

That's not what Luther said. I know this example is very heavily used, but it is heavily used for a reason. What happened is that Luther followed this chain of reasoning (grossly simplified) :

1. Heliocentrism conflicts with the geocentrist interpretation of the Bible.
2. The geocentrist interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the Bible.

Therefore,

Heliocentrism contradicts the Bible.

Where is the fallacy? Of course, it is that the geocentrist approach is not the only valid interpretation of the Bible. However, the only way to know that the geocentrist interpretation is invalid and the heliocentric one is, is through scientific evidence which is external to the Bible, since both approaches maintain complete internal consistency to the Bible. It was precisely before this scientific evidence existed or was widely propagated that geocentrism was seen as a valid interpretation of the Bible and heliocentrism wasn't.

Does this sound familiar? Trying my hand at a chiasm:

It is only because the evidence for evolution isn't widely propagated and understood that neo-creationism is seen as a valid interpretation of the Bible while evolutionism isn't. What makes things worse is that the only way to determine between the evolutionist and the creationist approach is through scientific evidence external to the Bible, since it is possible for both approahces to maintain internal consistency for the Bible. So, we should try our best to avoid the fallacy that the creationist approach is the only valid interpretation of the Bible, which is often implicit in statements like this:

Evolution contradicts the Bible.

which is often hiding this chain of reasoning:

2. The neo-creationist interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the Bible.
1. Evolution conflicts with the neo-creationist interpretation of the Bible.

Sounds good, but I hope that last sentence isn't one you use a lot.

Oh, it is. Have you ever tried to lead a Bible study on John before? Last week we did the passage commonly subtitled "A prostitute meets the Light of the world", John 8, and we had a gala time discussing just what was Jesus doing writing in the sand? Was He just bored? Was He writing the sins of the Pharisees? Was He scribbling Bible verses? I didn't say, "There's no right or wrong answer", but I said that "we just don't know for now what Jesus was doing."

If anybody knows for sure what Jesus was writing on the sand in John 8, help me get in touch with him or her!
Or what the baptism for the dead is in 1 Corinthians 15!

And these queer things happen in what I consider to be pivotal parts of the Bible: the John passage is a powerful revelation of Jesus' attitude towards sin and sinenrs, and the 1 Cor 15 passage is a crucial exposition on resurrection. Smack in the middle of both God decides to leave things that would confound the next 1800 years of Bible readers and students.

Given that, I think that maintaining humility towards the interpretations we hold of Scripture is a very prudent and practical approach.

Medieval interpreters normally sought out four valid interpretations: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.

I think that what you mean is that there is only one valid literal interpretation. E.g in geocentrism vs. heliocentrism only one can be right. (Ditto with historical events: Jesus was either crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate or he was not.)

That does not preclude the validity of the allegorical, anagogical and moral interpretations medievalists would have drawn from the scriptures which apparently support geocentrism.

Poetical work such as the Song of Solomon is commonly intended to be open to multiple valid interpretations, none of which need to be literal.

I know what your objection is and I'm quite sure it doesn't apply to what I'm saying. Now I'm trying to figure out how to get my words in line to communicate that. I think I could communicate more clearly by saying this:

Where multiple interpretations conflict irreconcilably, it is possible that we may not have sufficient evidence to distinguish which is true and which isn't. However, if both are "true", they are only both "true" provisionally, and ultimately one will be shown to be true while the other false, either by external evidence or by the final revelation of God in eternity future.

 

[laptoppop]

What supernatural means, for example, did God use to place David on the throne of Israel?

This is way afield, but the leading of the prophet who chose the young shepherd boy was certainly supernatural.
-lee-

 

[gluadys]

I know what your objection is and I'm quite sure it doesn't apply to what I'm saying. Now I'm trying to figure out how to get my words in line to communicate that. I think I could communicate more clearly by saying this:

Where multiple interpretations conflict irreconcilably, it is possible that we may not have sufficient evidence to distinguish which is true and which isn't. However, if both are "true", they are only both "true" provisionally, and ultimately one will be shown to be true while the other false, either by external evidence or by the final revelation of God in eternity future.

It doesn't apply if you are thinking primarily of the literal or historical meaning. That is the field in which external evidence would be relevant--in showing what is factual and what is not.

But I get uneasy when the notion of only one valid meaning is also applied to parables, poetry, visions etc. Most of these can have many valid interpretations even ones that seem at odds with each other.

For example, I have seen the parable of the talents interpreted (most commonly) with the third servant as the "lazy good-for-nothing" villain, and (much less commonly) as the "heroic defender" of the Covenant--the only one of the servants to put God's will above the master's will. However, since this is a parable, not history, there is no external evidence that would determine that one is valid and one is not. So while the interpretations conflict, I think both are valid, and the parable could be taught either way in a bible-study class.

 

[vossler]

However, the only way to know that the geocentrist interpretation is invalid and the heliocentric one is, is through scientific evidence which is external to the Bible, since both approaches maintain complete internal consistency to the Bible. It was precisely before this scientific evidence existed or was widely propagated that geocentrism was seen as a valid interpretation of the Bible and heliocentrism wasn't.

I still don't have a problem with this because the integrity of Scripture was maintained. I love science and constantly marvel at what new discoveries are made. It is probably the most fascinating area of discovery available to mankind. I just wish that those who practice it stay out of all the wild speculations and stick to what they actually can see. Fortunately the vast majority of scientists do exactly that, unfortunately it is those who don't that get all the publicity and notority.

Oh, it is. Have you ever tried to lead a Bible study on John before?

I've led and participated in many of such studies and what Jesus was writing on the sand was only a small sideline to the study. It's quite interesting that most of you're teaching can be summarized with "We just don't know which yet." As your student I'd have to wonder what the truth is if we don't know yet.

Sure, it was neat to speculate on what Jesus was writing, but we never built any sort of doctrine on it. In many ways that's what evolution does, it speculates and builds doctrine on things it cannot know.

Just like the passages in John 8, there are many truths to be mined without having to speculate on any one unknown; Genesis is very similar.

Given that, I think that maintaining humility towards the interpretations we hold of Scripture is a very prudent and practical approach.

Without a doubt on that we can agree.

 

[theFijian]

In many ways that's what evolution does, it speculates and builds doctrine on things it cannot know.

I already corrected this misunderstanding of yours, evolution is based on observation.

 

[Assyrian]

I still don't have a problem with this because the integrity of Scripture was maintained. I love science and constantly marvel at what new discoveries are made. It is probably the most fascinating area of discovery available to mankind. I just wish that those who practice it stay out of all the wild speculations and stick to what they actually can see. Fortunately the vast majority of scientists do exactly that, unfortunately it is those who don't that get all the publicity and notority.

Which sounds pretty similar to what Luther said about Copernicus. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Copernicus's ideas were wild speculation. All he had was wild new hypothesis which fitted the observations better than the old model. No one had observed the earth rotate or seen it move around the sun. The sun still appeared to rise in the morning and set at night and the stars continued on their courses.

It wasn't until Foucault's pendulum experiment in 1851 that there was any direct evidence the earth moved. Thank God, by that time the church had long since accepted heliocentrism. They accepted it because the science was sound, even if no one had actually seen the earth rotate.

 

[shernren]

I've led and participated in many of such studies and what Jesus was writing on the sand was only a small sideline to the study. It's quite interesting that most of you're teaching can be summarized with "We just don't know which yet." As your student I'd have to wonder what the truth is if we don't know yet.

Sure, it was neat to speculate on what Jesus was writing, but we never built any sort of doctrine on it. In many ways that's what evolution does, it speculates and builds doctrine on things it cannot know.

Just like the passages in John 8, there are many truths to be mined without having to speculate on any one unknown; Genesis is very similar.

Thematically it was a sideline, but it took up a lot of time. Young people.

In any case, Genesis has many unequivocal theological truths, I would agree. But I doubt that the idea of the recent six-day creation is one of those unequivocal truths.

 

[vossler]

In any case, Genesis has many unequivocal theological truths, I would agree. But I doubt that the idea of the recent six-day creation is one of those unequivocal truths.

It's not???

 

[KerrMetric]

It wasn't until Foucault's pendulum experiment in 1851 that there was any direct evidence the earth moved. Thank God, by that time the church had long since accepted heliocentrism. They accepted it because the science was sound, even if no one had actually seen the earth rotate.

Proof the Earth moved through space was given in the 1720's by James Bradley the Astronomer Royal at the time. He explained the phenomenon of stellar aberration.

Proof the Earth rotated was actually demonstrated by the deflection of objects falling due to the Coriolis force a few decades prior to the Foucaults pendulum though it is true to say the pendulum was the definitive observation that did not require precision that tested 19th century experimental capability as the deflection experiments did.