[OPEN]Why should the Bible be about science or history?

[Assyrian]

Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk Pat

 

[Assyrian]

New York Best Sellers List #1: The LEGO of Scripture

Is that the Amen LEGO Jesus spoke about?

Matt 18:3 αμην λεγω υμιν εαν μη στραφητε και γενησθε ως τα παιδια ου μη εισελθητε εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων

 

[USincognito]

I wish I had posted this sooner and sorry for not posting a link to it, but Pats started what turned out to be a very interesting, if short lived, thread in the Non-Christian Religions subforum asking Muslims what they felt about evolution.

Guess what happened? One of them offered up a lengthy (and interesting) post where he used the Koran and Summa as a science text. In summary, he stated that Islam had no problem with the existance of intelligent, bipedal tool using beings, but they could not be protohumans because the Koran states that Adam was created directly by Allah.

At first this sounds like fairly reasonable position, but it's really no different than the YEC approach to hominid fossils (fully ape/fully human, rickets, etc.) because it ignores all of science outside of the scripture* that unequivocably points to a genetic connection explained only by common ancestry between chimpanzees and humans - and every other species ever on the Earth for that matter.

If the scripture fails to fully explain all the evidence then you can't just ad hoc or ignore evidences that demant explanation the problem isn't with the scripture the problem (say it all together now) is with one's interpretation of the scripture. It isn't enough reading the Koran as a science text is enough to allow hominids to have existed in the first place, there also needs to be an explanation for why there are all the other connections between chimps and humans.

*I'm using lower case because I'm referring to both the Bible and Koran.

 

[vossler]

At first this sounds like fairly reasonable position, but it's really no different than the YEC approach to hominid fossils (fully ape/fully human, rickets, etc.) because it ignores all of science outside of the scripture* that unequivocably points to a genetic connection explained only by common ancestry between chimpanzees and humans - and every other species ever on the Earth for that matter.

Couldn't the fact that there is a common designer be the link or connection between the genetic similarities of life on earth?

If the scripture fails to fully explain all the evidence then you can't just ad hoc or ignore evidences that demand explanation the problem isn't with the scripture the problem (say it all together now) is with one's interpretation of the scripture.

I don't have a problem with evidence that is outside of the scope of Scripture, my problem has always been with the evidence that is within the scope of Scripture.

 

[USincognito]

Couldn't the fact that there is a common designer be the link or connection between the genetic similarities of life on earth?

No, because that's presisely the sort of ad hoc rationalizing that doesn't actually address the genetic similarites especially psudogenes, cytochrome C and most problematic for the suggestion of common design endogenous retroviruses. There really is no coherant explanation from design advocates for why all primates would have ERV genetic material in their DNA with the similarities growing less moving back in time with common ancestors.

I don't have a problem with evidence that is outside of the scope of Scripture, my problem has always been with the evidence that is within the scope of Scripture.

What evidence is there within Scripture as this gets back to the heart of the issue with the comments from the Muslim guy. A narrative is just that. It can be historical, it can be mythological or legendary or it can be a made up story, but it's not evidence. The physical - the buildings/ruins, the artifacts, the fossils, the DNA - it is these that constitute evidence, not narratives.

 

[jereth]

Couldn't the fact that there is a common designer be the link or connection between the genetic similarities of life on earth?

That's not a legitimate argument. For example, human beings (a common designer) have designed automobiles, basketballs, wooden cabinets, personal computers and coffee mugs. None of these things are alike, yet they come from a common designer.

If God created miraculously, he could just as well have created two, three, four... a thousand different categories of living organisms that are nothing alike. That would be evidence for fiat creation. But in reality, every single living organism on earth is engineered in the same fundamental way. This does not prove evolution, but is overwhelming evidence that evolution did happen.

 

[vossler]

No, because that's precisely the sort of ad hoc rationalizing that doesn't actually address the genetic similarites especially psudogenes, cytochrome C and most problematic for the suggestion of common design endogenous retroviruses. There really is no coherant explanation from design advocates for why all primates would have ERV genetic material in their DNA with the similarities growing less moving back in time with common ancestors.

Somehow I knew that wouldn't make a difference, those darn psudogenes are always throwing a fly into my ointment, not to mention those pesky ERVs.

What evidence is there within Scripture as this gets back to the heart of the issue with the comments from the Muslim guy. A narrative is just that. It can be historical, it can be mythological or legendary or it can be a made up story, but it's not evidence. The physical - the buildings/ruins, the artifacts, the fossils, the DNA - it is these that constitute evidence, not narratives.

True, but if I were the inventor/developer of, let's say a time machine, and I then write a general narrative about how I developed the device with the intent of informing but not providing the recipe. This narrative was written in order to share it with those who couldn't begin to understand the complexity of such a complicated machine, its intent wasn't to answer everyone's questions, just provide basic answers. Then people come in and perform experiments on my machine and determine that my narrative is false and develop their own narrative, one that contradicts the original authors narrative concerning the specific development of the machine. I think others would be perfectly justified in dismissing such work. Wouldn't you?

 

[vossler]

That's not a legitimate argument. For example, human beings (a common designer) have designed automobiles, basketballs, wooden cabinets, personal computers and coffee mugs. None of these things are alike, yet they come from a common designer.

I can't see this at all. Plants and animals are not in any way comparable to the above.

If God created miraculously, he could just as well have created two, three, four... a thousand different categories of living organisms that are nothing alike. That would be evidence for fiat creation. But in reality, every single living organism on earth is engineered in the same fundamental way. This does not prove evolution, but is overwhelming evidence that evolution did happen.

I don't find animal life to be nearly as similar and alike as you do. The diversity and complexity of life is absolutely amazing and at no time does it ever cause me to think that all of it could have ever evolved from a single living organism no matter how I thought they were engineered.

 

[jereth]

I can't see this at all. Plants and animals are not in any way comparable to the above.

Your argument (as I understood it) was that similarities between living things is evidence for a common designer. The converse argument is that a common designer would be expected to design things similarly. My response was that basketballs are totally different from automobiles, yet they have a common designer.

The issue of "designer" is therefore irrelevant to the question: "why are living organisms similar?" A single designer is capable of making completely different things. Thus, when we observe organisms being similar it remains powerful evidence of common ancestry.

I don't find animal life to be nearly as similar and alike as you do. The diversity and complexity of life is absolutely amazing and at no time does it ever cause me to think that all of it could have ever evolved from a single living organism no matter how I thought they were engineered.

I agree, life is wonderfully diverse. But at a fundamental level, all life is extraordinarily similar. Every organism has genetic material coded by nucleotides, that is translated into proteins, which are chains of amino acids. All life is carbon based. All life utilises ATP, etc. (Someone who knows more about biochemistry can tell you more)

 

[Nooj]

but if I were the inventor/developer of, let's say a time machine, and I then write a general narrative abouthow I developed the device with the intent of informing but not providing the recipe. This narrative was written in order to share it with those who couldn't begin to understand the complexity of such a complicated machine, its intent wasn't to answer everyone's questions, just provide basic answers.

If the Bible provides basic answers about creation like who exactly made the Universe, do you think that the authors of the Bible just glossed over complicated areas like evolution or the Big Bang? It would certainly have saved the early Christians and Jews a lot of confusion.

 

[Pats]

*All quotes in this post were taken from the Creationist's subforum.*

Our understanding of both the Scriptures and science is fallible. However, especially if the Scripture seems to be talking plainly about a topic and science disagrees -- I'll push a lot harder on examining what could be wrong about my understanding related to science than that related to Scripture.

Several evolutionists tried addressing this very issue in this thread, just as one example. Yet, the responses that were posted by creationists didn't seem to address the issues that were brought up by the evolutionists in this thread.

This very issue impacted my decision to leave YEC a lot. Because YECs think they are puting "The Bible" above science, but they really aren't. Unless you are also a flat earther and a geocentrist, you aren't putting scripture above science.

Also, many Christians put their culture above Scripture. Most fundamentalist Christian churches do not teach that women should cover their heads, yet it is quite explicitly taught in the NT that it is shamefull and disgraceful if women do not in fact cover their heads.

Why is this? I believe it is because most modern, American Christians properly interpret this to be in regaurds to cultural modesty. As long as our modest is proportionate to our culture, most of us don't have a problem. But, a plain, literal reading of the Scriptures definately calls for a women to cover our heads.

Just as it says the earth is flat and the universe is geocentric.

Yeah, that's why I typically take refuge here, the last thing I want to hear about is some TE spouting from his/her science god.

He went on to post:

The reason I see it as a god is because we worship it. We place our faith or trust in something above God and that is creating an idol. It's really no different that any other idol we make, whether it be money, sex, drugs, etc. Think about the discussions over in OT, how often is God or Scripture mentioned, very rarely. Quite interesting for a Christan forum, don't you think?

Scripture is naturally addressed most in OT over Crevo, since OT is a theology forum and Crevo is not.

I see the Scriptures being regularly addressed here. Such a this thread. I know none of the creationists who responded in this thread responded to the questions asked in this thread. Such as, why aren't other planets mentioned in the Bible? How do YECs reconcile Flat Earthism?

Comparing evolution with idolatry?!?!? You then go on to compare a scientific theory with sins like sex and drugs?!? In my mind, this is a small example of why so many nonChristians are turned off to Christianity.

Personally, I couldn't have based my decision against YECism on science. I don't know enough about science. I had to understand TEism from a theological point of view first and foremost.

Money, sex, or drugs can be given control over our lives. But evolution! Please...

 

[laptoppop]

Couple of quick points:
- It seems rude to me to quote a post from the fellowship forum into the debate area without permission.
- You can't have it both ways. First you basically require simplistic scriptural exegesis from YECs, then you complain when we understand a level of subtlety. For once and for all -- just because we believe the Bible is inspired -- God breathed -- exactly as God intended it -- does NOT mean that we do not understand human expression or cultural influences. It DOES mean that we reject judging Scripture by science. When the two conflict - it is reasonable to see why. Sometimes our understanding of scripture is flawed, other times the understanding of science is flawed. It is good to correct our understandings. BUT its wrong to twist scripture in ways that the original authors would never have agreed with in order to meet the demands of current scientific thinking, especially with reasonable alternatives.

 

[Dannager]

Couple of quick points:
- It seems rude to me to quote a post from the fellowship forum into the debate area without permission.

I've heard this said before, but I'd like to know what the reasoning behind it is. It's not as though the words are private - anyone can read the creationist sub-forum even if they can't participate there. Furthermore, as I understand it the sub-forum acts as a sort of refuge from the primary debate, where people can go to discuss things without the input of the other side. I don't see how cross-posting violates that sanctity. The sub-forum remains creationist-only. Is there some other reason for the complaint that I'm missing here?

 

[Jadis40]

I've heard this said before, but I'd like to know what the reasoning behind it is. It's not as though the words are private - anyone can read the creationist sub-forum even if they can't participate there. Furthermore, as I understand it the sub-forum acts as a sort of refuge from the primary debate, where people can go to discuss things without the input of the other side. I don't see how cross-posting violates that sanctity. The sub-forum remains creationist-only. Is there some other reason for the complaint that I'm missing here?

I don't know if you're missing anything...but I for one really don't feel welcome in the creationist sub-forum any more because:

1. I accept the Big Bang as the key event where God acted outside of any sort of human understanding of the concepts of time and space to bring the visible universe into being, thus showing us His awesome creative power.
2. I firmly believe that the universe and our earth are older than a mere 6,000 years old.
3. I accept scientific evidence that the universe is approximately 13.3 billion years old, with the planet earth and the solar system are approximately 4.6 billion years old.
3. I don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 or so.
4. I don't believe that the flood was global, wiping out all of humanity save for 8 people.
5. I don't believe that dinosaurs and man lived on the earth together at any point in human history.

Added altogether, I figured it's not worth it.

 

[shernren]

Would it be rude to suggest that every once in a while, a few ideas are posted in the creationist sub-forum because they are too weak to stand up to any criticism whatsoever?



Unless you didn't actually mean what you said in the creationist sub-forum, I see nothing wrong with discussing it in an open forum. It's not like it's copyrighted speech or anything. If you wanted that thought to be private you shouldn't have posted it on the Internet.

I'm just curious. Where have we ever required "simplistic" scriptural exegesis from YECs?

And if you really reject "judging Scripture by science", I welcome you to shoot this down: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23469087&postcount=45
Until any YECist can, I stand by the perfect validity of using science to interpret Scripture, since it is a practice all Christians (YEC or not) engage in every time they read Scripture.

What I really don't understand is how I, or any other evolutionist, can be understood to "worship" evolutionism. I worship God. I believe He was and is Incarnated as Jesus Christ. And I accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for mankind's origins. Worship is a tangible expression of a metaphysical/spiritual belief system in a person's daily life (Romans 12:1,2). I worship God: therefore I tithe in church, I read the Bible regularly, sing songs of praise, help the poor, defend the downtrodden, share about Jesus with others, fast, etc.

Tell me, how do we worship evolution? Does gluadys sing hymns to Tiktaalik? Does Mallon baptize people in the name of Darwin, Huxley, and Dawkins? Has anyone built a Temple of Darwinism, or been knighted into the Most Holy Order of Common Descent? Did I skip church to watch PBS Nova? Frankly, if evolution is a "religion", it's an awfully pathetic religion. As a scientific theory, however, it holds its own in biology and does an excellent job.

If we have sacrificed anything on the altar of evolution, it is a simplistic, reductionist understanding of the Bible. That aside, everything in our lives comes under the dominion and control of God, YECist protests notwithstanding.

 

[stumpjumper]

As an FYI, it's not against the rules to quote someone's post and move it to another thread and it's done quite frequently on CF as a whole...

However, we should take into account that some people post in certain areas because they do not wish to debate certain points (and this goes for all sorts of members whether the debates are congregational or theolological...) and that is something that we should always keep in mind... Sometimes people do just want to state what they believe without debating it... Doesn't mean they might not want to debate it at another time too...

Just a little stumpy dialogue....

Carry on...

 

[USincognito]

BUT its wrong to twist scripture in ways that the original authors would never have agreed with in order to meet the demands of current scientific thinking, especially with reasonable alternatives.

Could you cite either verses or commentary that explain the intent of the original authors? I think one of the reasons this debate exists in the first place is that any claim to that sort of insight is based on little more than one's interpretation.

 

[Pats]

Couple of quick points:
- It seems rude to me to quote a post from the fellowship forum into the debate area without permission.

If I have offended you, then I appologize.

I am confused because I did not use the names of the creationists, purposfully, so that if they did not wish to defend their comments here there would seemingly be no obligation to do so.

I could have just as easily made these comments without quoting you, directly, and I shall keep this in mind that you found it offensive in the future.

- You can't have it both ways. First you basically require simplistic scriptural exegesis from YECs, then you complain when we understand a level of subtlety.

Is that what I did with my comments. Please explain how? I am confused.

For once and for all -- just because we believe the Bible is inspired -- God breathed -- exactly as God intended it -- does NOT mean that we do not understand human expression or cultural influences.

If this part of your response is still being addressed toward me directly, I did not say otherwise. I agree that Scripture is God breathed. If it wasn't, I might as well call it a day and be done with Christianity. What I am attempting here, is to ask if anyone would like to address some of the specific issue that have been raised here.

It DOES mean that we reject judging Scripture by science. When the two conflict - it is reasonable to see why.

Fair enough. However, I believe a large focal point of the debate in OT is the exploration of what the Scriptures were intending to say in Genesis and what they were not.

Futhermore, if I had posted in the TE subforum that Creationists are idolizing their literal translation of scripture and elevating their interpretation to the point of idolatry, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue was addressed in OT. I realize you are not the poster who made those comments, however, it is really one issue down here in OT that warrants addressing.

 

[laptoppop]

If I have offended you, then I appologize.

Nah, we're cool Pats. I'm "rude" sometimes too and this is an example of me being very tired and overly sensitive. (rude is way too strong of a word for this context - and I absolutely did not mean to imply any rules were even close to being violated). I appreciate you didn't cite names, but I do feel a certain obligation to explain myself when my words are brought up in a different context. I will point out that I ended that post with "(I would remind TEs that this is not the proper forum for debates -- I'm just plain tired of arguing and justifying why I have the audacity to defy the scientific establishment right now)" -- I just wanted to be able to chat a bit more freely without feeling like the nuance of every word would be scrutinized and challenged.

Is that what I did with my comments. Please explain how? I am confused.

In the same post you said that to be consistent we had to be flat-earthers or geocentrist (MAN I am SO tired of that lame straw man argument) and then again, when we demonstrate intelligence and restraint in exegesis you say we're inconsistent. (although there are congregations which agree with your comments about covering) One of the problems with theological positions is that they are often placed at different points along a continuum - not the straw men of extreme positions used to criticize other viewpoints. Mature thinking often will help you to appreciate the wisdom and insights from other people who you disagree with. *Most* YECs are not at the extreme end of the spectrum.... and do not need to be in order to be consistent.

If this part of your response is still being addressed toward me directly, I did not say otherwise. I agree that Scripture is God breathed. If it wasn't, I might as well call it a day and be done with Christianity.

What I hear more of from other TEs in this forum is that scripture is man-made, transcribed from a long succession of oral legends and myths (or whatever words you want to use), resulting in something you can gain religious insights from, but certainly not God's message to us in smallest detail, representative of His knowledge. The position derives from Higher Criticism which originated in Germany in the late 1700s. One of the basic precepts of this school of thinking was that miracles and the supernatural do not occur. Because of that, they went to great lengths to eliminate Jesus' miracles in the New Testament through "documentary" theories, and tore Genesis into 4 or 5 sources because there was no way such primitive people could have such an advanced theology.

I had a teacher in the 1970s who was heavy into this philosophy. One day she was teaching, and said that parts of the old testament were not finished until 120AD. Fortunately, I knew about the Septuagint - a complete translation of the old testament completed 100+ years before Christ (you can't translate what has not been written!). I believe one reason for the Septuagint was God wanting to put a stake in the ground that He was able and willing to reveal prophecy about the Messiah, and to clearly identify the "son of a carpenter" as the King of Kings. (on a side note - the septuagint is also quite revealing as to how those 70 scholars thought of various things which are seen as ambiguous in the Hebrew)

One very important question is how the people of the day saw the Scriptures. Plain reading is often dismissed around here as an offshoot of "fundamentalism" -- when I would declare that it is much more keeping with historic interpretations as recorded in the writings of ancient rabbis and early church fathers and councils. For example, the rabbis would assume mosaic authorship as a fundamental precept - there was no discussion of "oral traditions....". I believe we have become wise in our own eyes. I believe that the scriptures are not just a religious document written by men, but are a communication from the eternal divine omniscient God -- and that He is smart enough and powerful enough to ensure the accuracy of what is written, and to cause it to continue to have relevance to people throughout the ages. I do NOT believe that it is a matter of "private interpretation" - but rather enlightenment by the Spirit, not 18th century theologians.

One must always remember that the early church and before -- they did not have the same wonderful access to knowledge that we do. One NT class I had estimated that only about 5% of the people could read and write. For example, the letters were designed to be read out loud - not peeled apart and dissected. (Try reading Phillipians out loud every day for a month -- its a great experience, and new things hop out that get hidden as we use other techniques.)

Sorry for the long post - I wanted to clearly say "we're cool" and I've been pondering some of the other things for some time.

 

[laptoppop]

Would it be rude to suggest that every once in a while, a few ideas are posted in the creationist sub-forum because they are too weak to stand up to any criticism whatsoever?

Actually, I would say yes to a certain degree - especially if the post itself gave a different reason.

I'm just curious. Where have we ever required "simplistic" scriptural exegesis from YECs?

Every time a TE says that to be consistent YECs would have to be flat earth geocentrists.

And if you really reject "judging Scripture by science", I welcome you to shoot this down: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23469087&postcount=45

Until any YECist can, I stand by the perfect validity of using science to interpret Scripture, since it is a practice all Christians (YEC or not) engage in every time they read Scripture.

I'll try to get to it later. I just want to point out that the standard used for judging is by definition being held out as more important, more "right", more authoritative than the thing being judged.

What I really don't understand is how I, or any other evolutionist, can be understood to "worship" evolutionism. I worship God. I believe He was and is Incarnated as Jesus Christ. And I accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for mankind's origins. Worship is a tangible expression of a metaphysical/spiritual belief system in a person's daily life (Romans 12:1,2). I worship God: therefore I tithe in church, I read the Bible regularly, sing songs of praise, help the poor, defend the downtrodden, share about Jesus with others, fast, etc.

Tell me, how do we worship evolution? Does gluadys sing hymns to Tiktaalik? Does Mallon baptize people in the name of Darwin, Huxley, and Dawkins? Has anyone built a Temple of Darwinism, or been knighted into the Most Holy Order of Common Descent? Did I skip church to watch PBS Nova? Frankly, if evolution is a "religion", it's an awfully pathetic religion. As a scientific theory, however, it holds its own in biology and does an excellent job.

If we have sacrificed anything on the altar of evolution, it is a simplistic, reductionist understanding of the Bible.

Worship does not consist solely of hymns, etc. It is an outgrowth, an expression of what one holds to be the final authority - the ultimate source of truth. To a conservative, the scriptures represent a direct revelation from the eternal God who we esteem -- and that makes them a better authority than an indirect revelation from His creation arrived at through our own reasonings. We must trust what He says above all else.

That aside, everything in our lives comes under the dominion and control of God, YECist protests notwithstanding.

If you look at the "just because" thread I started - I tried to say that very point quite clearly. I do believe some TEs take it too far -- trusting "science" over direct revelation, and some YECs take it too far in the other direction - honoring the "love letter" more than the author.