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

[shernren]

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

If the post itself gave a reason not to be quoted for debate and discussion then I fully apologize. But I would think that the mere fact of "this was posted on Creationists and Creationists is a no-evo-debaters-allowed forum" wouldn't. But again, I apologize. I was a little too testy when I wrote that.

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

Okay. I get what you mean. But I don't find that argument baseless; the issue of geocentrism and its relation to Scripture is also discussed in the thread I cited.

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.

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.

Alright, I'll admit that my laziness to check that thread has caused a misunderstanding. But ever since I've been back (not long ) I'm trying to make it a point not to look at the Creationist sub-forum at all, if possible. Flee from temptation! XD

But I would think that Scripture (which is the "direct revelation" you allude to) is not a direct revelation of God. It is indirect. What God communicated through Scripture He communicated through human words (which are imperfect), by human writers (who are fallible, although the ideas of infallibility and inerrancy to which I too subscribe make provision for that), and in the context of human culture (which always contains elements of sin and ignorance).

But we know that Jesus is the direct revelation of God. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"; Scripture never claims that of itself but only of Jesus. Scripture's authority is derivative from God; but Jesus is God. In fact, the need for Christianity to accommodate this idea (that a man can be fully identified with and fully reveal God) is to me the principal reason why we need such a difficult and mysterious doctrine as the Trinity. Nothing created could reveal God in His entirety (not science, not the Bible, not the church at present) so that Jesus, who claims to reveal God fully, must be uncreated - and therefore God.

Take away the uniqueness of Jesus' direct revelation and one takes away the Trinity and the whole point of Christianity. And while I am not going to call anyone a Bibliolater, the idea of Scripture as direct revelation which is so enshrined in YEC thought comes dangerously close to doing just that.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

I think the issue comes from the YEC claim that a six day creation is the simple plain reading of scripture, but when problems are pointed out in the simple reading, they switch to the more subtle exegesis. Now there is nothing wrong with this deeper study, though I think some of the YEC answers, as you described it, 'twist scripture in ways that the original authors would never have agreed' (changing the tense of verbs to reconcile the order of creation in Gen 1&2 but that is another question ) Others are legitimate studies of the complexity of God's word.

The problem is, and this is I think what TEs complain about, that you cannot use the 'YEC is the simple plain reading' when the simple plain reading is seriously self contradictory without very subtle exegesis.

The geocentrism and to a lesser extent flat earth argument is not really a pushing YECs to extremes straw man, though you get that too It is only in the last few centuries that geocentrism has been the domain of extremists. Before that it was the norm. It is how Luther and Calvin interpreted scripture and they are hardly lunatic fringe.

What has changed is science. Wth the science came a reappraisal of scriptures that every one had read geocentricly before.

The reason TEs push YECs towards the geocentrist extreme is that they see an inconsistency between accepting unquestioningly the reinterpretation of scripture after Copernicus, but insisting it is wrong to do the same with the age of the earth or evolution.

 

[laptoppop]

Alright, I'll admit that my laziness to check that thread has caused a misunderstanding. But ever since I've been back (not long ) I'm trying to make it a point not to look at the Creationist sub-forum at all, if possible. Flee from temptation! XD

<grin>

But I would think that Scripture (which is the "direct revelation" you allude to) is not a direct revelation of God. It is indirect. What God communicated through Scripture He communicated through human words (which are imperfect), by human writers (who are fallible, although the ideas of infallibility and inerrancy to which I too subscribe make provision for that), and in the context of human culture (which always contains elements of sin and ignorance).

But we know that Jesus is the direct revelation of God. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"; Scripture never claims that of itself but only of Jesus. Scripture's authority is derivative from God; but Jesus is God. In fact, the need for Christianity to accommodate this idea (that a man can be fully identified with and fully reveal God) is to me the principal reason why we need such a difficult and mysterious doctrine as the Trinity. Nothing created could reveal God in His entirety (not science, not the Bible, not the church at present) so that Jesus, who claims to reveal God fully, must be uncreated - and therefore God.

Take away the uniqueness of Jesus' direct revelation and one takes away the Trinity and the whole point of Christianity.

Actually I think we might agree on most of this. In terms of quality and primacy of revelation we have:
1) Jesus - explicit direct revelation - the author and potter
2) Scripture - specific indirect revelation - the love letter
3) nature - general indirect revelation - the broken pot

I think virtually all of the folks on this board would agree with the order here theoretically (although the words after are probably not as agreeable). I think in general TEs and YECs would disagree about the pureness and quality of God's transmission of his precise exact message in Scripture.

And while I am not going to call anyone a Bibliolater, the idea of Scripture as direct revelation which is so enshrined in YEC thought comes dangerously close to doing just that.

I would pretty much agree with that. I ended my other post with "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."

Let me wordsmith it a bit....
I do believe some TEs take interpretation of the general revelation too far -- trusting "science" over the specific revelation of God, and some YECs take it too far in a different direction -- honoring the "love letter" more than the author.

 

[laptoppop]

I think the issue comes from the YEC claim that a six day creation is the simple plain reading of scripture, but when problems are pointed out in the simple reading, they switch to the more subtle exegesis. Now there is nothing wrong with this deeper study, though I think some of the YEC answers, as you described it, 'twist scripture in ways that the original authors would never have agreed' (changing the tense of verbs to reconcile the order of creation in Gen 1&2 but that is another question ) Others are legitimate studies of the complexity of God's word.

The problem is, and this is I think what TEs complain about, that you cannot use the 'YEC is the simple plain reading' when the simple plain reading is seriously self contradictory without very subtle exegesis.

The geocentrism and to a lesser extent flat earth argument is not really a pushing YECs to extremes straw man, though you get that too It is only in the last few centuries that geocentrism has been the domain of extremists. Before that it was the norm. It is how Luther and Calvin interpreted scripture and they are hardly lunatic fringe.

What has changed is science. Wth the science came a reappraisal of scriptures that every one had read geocentricly before.

The reason TEs push YECs towards the geocentrist extreme is that they see an inconsistency between accepting unquestioningly the reinterpretation of scripture after Copernicus, but insisting it is wrong to do the same with the age of the earth or evolution.

I would agree with most of this post. However, I still believe it is more intellectually honest to discuss people's actual position rather than an extremist interpretation. OTOH, I would concede that pointing people toward what is believed to be the logical consequences / logical expression of a belief can be valuable.

In terms of the geocentrism and flat earth argument, the progression is not logical. It assumes a straw man initial position for YECs of "All Scripture should be interpreted literally." I don't know of any mature educated YECs that would take that position. Period. Instead, the initial position would be much more something (major wordsmithing required!) like:

The Scriptures consist of many different forms of literary expression, including historical accounts, poetry, figures of speech, parables, songs, etc. One must remember this as one examines various passages. The Scriptures were written at a particular time and understanding the culture of the day can help to inform our understanding, but they were also specifically written to express God's message throughout history unto the present day. The Bible is not just a history book, but is accurate when it explicitly talks about history. The Bible is not a science book, but is accurate when it talks about science. Jesus is the ultimate clearest expression of God we have. The Bible is a specific revelation of God, given to us to convey God's messages to us. God used people to deliver these messages. While the use of various people throughout the years influences the delivery style, the Scriptures are exactly as God wanted, down to the smallest jot and tittle. The messages are His, not theirs. God made this universe and all in it. We can learn about Him through this general revelation. Scientific study can be helpful in investigating this general revelation. Studying the general revelation can help to inform our understanding of the specific revelation of God, and the specific revelation of God can help to inform our understanding of the general revelation as well. However, our own understandings of the general revelation must never take precedence over the specific revelation.

Yes, this is much more "nuanced" than foks come across with - but I believe it is most informative to discuss the mature developed expressions of a position rather than a more simplistic one. There have been a number of less-developed expressions by particular TEs -- but I do not think it is useful to use those as representative of a more developed expression of TE theology.

 

[laptoppop]

The reason TEs push YECs towards the geocentrist extreme is that they see an inconsistency between accepting unquestioningly the reinterpretation of scripture after Copernicus, but insisting it is wrong to do the same with the age of the earth or evolution.

(I wanted to adress this in particular in a seperate post)
There is a fundamental difference between these two things. The science of Copernicus (i.e. the configuration of the solar system) is a particular, repeatable, verifiable science. It has been confirmed in a variety of ways including space travel. It is in existence right now and can be tested, confirmed, examined in the present.

The age of the earth and the ToE are based on interpretation of current evidence and experiments. They are deduced, not observed. We do not have direct observation over millions of years confirming the ToE. There is particular evidence, such as radiometric dating, which has been interpreted as representing extreme ages -- but other interpretations are available as well.

Observation versus interpretation -- that's the key difference.

 

[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.

Pop,

Any chance you could address my question to you about how you discern the intent of the author either via citation of verse or external commentary?

I have to say that over the last three years on CF I have gained an appreciation for Genesis as a magificently crafted and richly layered work of literature that combines a reminder to the Hebrews that YHVH is in charge of the Universe - not the Babylonian gods, a reasoning for the Sabbath, lessons on mans inherently sinful nature, lessons on God's relationship with man, puns in Hebrew and poetry that must sound wonderful when canted by a Cohen. That's an awful lot of wisdom and universal truths crammed into the first few chapters of Genesis.

But getting back to the OP, I don't see any evidence apart from a fundamentalist interpretation, for why Genesis should be read as a science and history text. As I pointed out a few pages back - using verses - there's no way one could claim that Genesis provides an archaeologically complete accounting for all the ethnicities of the earth.

How about you address what evidence you have that the original intent of the author(s) of Genesis was a strictly literalist interpretation? Then will you address why, if it was meant to be, read in what I now see as a shallow rendering - given the richness and layering - why it should be read in such, a manner?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The science of Copernicus (i.e. the configuration of the solar system) is a particular, repeatable, verifiable science. It has been confirmed in a variety of ways including space travel. It is in existence right now and can be tested, confirmed, examined in the present.


so?
it is still science trumping Scripture. which is the point of the discussion. YECism says that science should not trump Scripture in the question of origins but they have already allowed it to in physics and astronomy. The only difference is that they accept the astronomy and don't accept the biology.

It is their acceptance of the science in the clear literal contradiction to Scripture that is the big point. And is the continuing testimony of the geocentrics against the YECists that they are compromisers with modern science and really don't hold to the unity and authority of Scripture but have yielded that to Copernicanism when it belongs only to God.

good point, don't you think?

 

[laptoppop]

The science of Copernicus (i.e. the configuration of the solar system) is a particular, repeatable, verifiable science. It has been confirmed in a variety of ways including space travel. It is in existence right now and can be tested, confirmed, examined in the present.


so?
it is still science trumping Scripture. which is the point of the discussion. YECism says that science should not trump Scripture in the question of origins but they have already allowed it to in physics and astronomy. The only difference is that they accept the astronomy and don't accept the biology.

It is their acceptance of the science in the clear literal contradiction to Scripture that is the big point. And is the continuing testimony of the geocentrics against the YECists that they are compromisers with modern science and really don't hold to the unity and authority of Scripture but have yielded that to Copernicanism when it belongs only to God.

good point, don't you think?

Sorry, no I don't think it is a good point. I'm perfectly willing to enjoy the fruits of science contributing to our understanding of Scripture and of Scripture contributing to our understanding of science. It is not science "trumping" scripture, but rather science informing my scriptural interpretation. I think it is good and healthy to use both in the proper ways. For example, many of the comments by TEs or Gap theorists, etc., have served wonderfully to keep reminding me of the multi-faceted beauty and meaning of various passages. The fact that I also view them as historical does not lesson the other meanings, but rather expresses God as working in history -- in MY reality. I rejoice in that.

As I tried to say in the post you partially quoted - there is a drastic difference between direct observable science and deductions based on observations and speculation. I am not convinced that uniformitarianism provides a better interpretational model than catastrophism in a scientific context, let alone a theological one.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

here is a drastic difference between direct observable science and deductions based on observations and speculation. I am not convinced that uniformitarianism provides a better interpretational model than catastrophism in a scientific context, let alone a theological one.

First, there is no difference between the science of astronomy looking at SN1987a and a paleoanthropologist looking at the burial sites at Atapuerca. They both are looking at events roughly 200Kya. They both make observations, they both theorize using a combination of laboratory techniques and historical analysis. They both directly observe and make "deductions" (usually inductions however) from those observations. Both rely on shaping principles that include ideas of uniformity of natural cause and effect projected into the past. There is no difference between the two except that YECists accept more of astronomy then they do of biology.


this distinction between uniformatarianism and catastrophism is nonsense and is a strawman and smoke screen from the YECists misunderstanding not only of the science but more critically of the philosophy of science underlying. But that is a big and extraordinarily complex topic. I wouldn't even try to bring up M.Polanyi here.

 

[laptoppop]

Pop,

Any chance you could address my question to you about how you discern the intent of the author either via citation of verse or external commentary?

I have to say that over the last three years on CF I have gained an appreciation for Genesis as a magificently crafted and richly layered work of literature that combines a reminder to the Hebrews that YHVH is in charge of the Universe - not the Babylonian gods, a reasoning for the Sabbath, lessons on mans inherently sinful nature, lessons on God's relationship with man, puns in Hebrew and poetry that must sound wonderful when canted by a Cohen. That's an awful lot of wisdom and universal truths crammed into the first few chapters of Genesis.

But getting back to the OP, I don't see any evidence apart from a fundamentalist interpretation, for why Genesis should be read as a science and history text. As I pointed out a few pages back - using verses - there's no way one could claim that Genesis provides an archaeologically complete accounting for all the ethnicities of the earth.

How about you address what evidence you have that the original intent of the author(s) of Genesis was a strictly literalist interpretation? Then will you address why, if it was meant to be, read in what I now see as a shallow rendering - given the richness and layering - why it should be read in such, a manner?

I have never said Genesis should be interpreted in a "strictly literalist" manner. That is a straw man argument. My position is that Genesis is historical, not just theological. Having said that - the understanding that it is historical in no way undermines my ability to appreciate and enjoy the multitude of richness in the messages contained within the historical story. In other words, just because it is historical does not mean that it cannot convey a host of other meanings as well. In fact, it is richer to see God working in our universe, in our history, directly -- to express and portray His truth. Another example I enjoy is the way that God mocked the gods of Egypt as he sent the plagues.

The beauty of the text goes "up" in the sense of larger issues - and it goes "down" as well. While I would not rely on them for doctrine, the study of "Bible codes" has revealed additional structure and beauty at the smallest level. The statistical argument is compelling -- and the data is just plain fun and inspiring. At every level, from meta to micro, the Scriptures contain meaning and beauty.

The burden of proof does not lie with me, but rather with those who would support a non-historical interpretation. Such an interpretation is a recent development historically, and does not follow from a direct reading of the text.

There are a number of elements that would cause me to interpret the first part of Genesis as historical. Many of these elements have been discussed at length in these forums - and good intelligent people have differing opinions on them. I find the historic arguments to be more compelling. Here's an incomplete small summary list of a couple of the points:

1) There is nothing directly in the text to indicate that it is not historical. Most of the non-historical positions are offshoots of late 18th century biblical interpretation, not classical interpretation. It uses poetic language, but with a high degree of specificity.

2) day -- the "day" of gen 1 is not just referred to as that, it is specifically bounded by a lot of extra definitional text specifying the morning and evening. The combination is compelling.

3) geneaologies -- Genesis has a large number of geneaologies. These start at Adam and go seamlessly through into the Patriarchs. There is no indication that one part is historical and the other part is legend blending into historical. This is an interpretation based on beliefs outside the text itself, as opposed to a reading of the text.

There's a lot more - but I'm out of time right now.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Such an interpretation is a recent development historically, and does not follow from a direct reading of the text.


this is not true.
the Church for 1500 years used what is known as the 4 fold method of Biblical interpretation. the most desirable method was allegorical. the rise of the preference for the literal begins with Luther and his rebellion against the extravagant medieval allegorical stories that he saw as nothing more than the fanciful illusions of men.

the book of Hebrews itself is an extraordinarily good example of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, primarily Genesis.


what you refer to as a "direct reading" is in fact a modern hermeneutic that relies on Scottish common sense realism and a man-in-the-pew factuality that is a example of using current cultural constructs to misinterpret the past. The point is that this is a particular hermeneutic that was not the only way nor the dominant one in Church history.

 

[laptoppop]

here is a drastic difference between direct observable science and deductions based on observations and speculation. I am not convinced that uniformitarianism provides a better interpretational model than catastrophism in a scientific context, let alone a theological one.

First, there is no difference between the science of astronomy looking at SN1987a and a paleoanthropologist looking at the burial sites at Atapuerca. They both are looking at events roughly 200Kya. They both make observations, they both theorize using a combination of laboratory techniques and historical analysis. They both directly observe and make "deductions" (usually inductions however) from those observations. Both rely on shaping principles that include ideas of uniformity of natural cause and effect projected into the past. There is no difference between the two except that YECists accept more of astronomy then they do of biology.


this distinction between uniformatarianism and catastrophism is nonsense and is a strawman and smoke screen from the YECists misunderstanding not only of the science but more critically of the philosophy of science underlying. But that is a big and extraordinarily complex topic. I wouldn't even try to bring up M.Polanyi here.

The particular astronomy under discussion was limited to solar system geometry, not other parts.

I'm sorry you dismiss an alternative interpretive framework as "nonsence." This is a key point in how one interprets the entire geologic column.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The particular astronomy under discussion was limited to solar system geometry, not other parts.

I'm sorry you dismiss an alternative interpretive framework as "nonsence." This is a key point in how one interprets the entire geologic column.

i wrote a paper for Dr.Russell Doolittle on why i thought that creationists ought to be considered a loyal opposition to materialistic scientists who, unless called on their philosophic principles would contaminate good science with bad philosophy.

That paper and that class were instrumental in me leaving a top notch university working on an advanced degree in biochem and going to a conservative seminary. Since then i've changed my mind and see YECists not only as "disloyal" to good fundamental principles in the philosophy of science, but possessors of a faulty and dangerous Biblical hermeneutic as well.


but that is just a personal aside.
i am not a geologist, but i can read, and afaik there is zero evidence for any "alternative interpretive framework" that "interprets the entire geologic column". i've never seen any presented here that is real science and in my rather limited reading on both the history of geology and in the science of geology there are no viable alternatives to the current model.


but i'm always interested in learning. open a thread and present your evidence and we can discuss it. i've changed my mind in the past and will certainly do so again, should i live long enough.

 

[laptoppop]

but i'm always interested in learning. open a thread and present your evidence and we can discuss it. i've changed my mind in the past and will certainly do so again, should i live long enough.

Now there's something I can agree with 100% without reservation. (not that *you* will change your mind <grin>, but personalizing it that I will undoubtedly change my mind about any number of issues)

 

[shernren]

I do believe some TEs take interpretation of the general revelation too far -- trusting "science" over the specific revelation of God, and some YECs take it too far in a different direction -- honoring the "love letter" more than the author.

I'm not trusting anything "over" anything. I can only do that where there is a direct conflict.

Revelation A: My father-in-law loves me.
Revelation B: My father-in-law hates me.

But take this set of revelations:

Revelation A (general) : My father-in-law loves me.
Revelation B (specific) : My father-in-law is hacking off my right upper arm with a hatchet!

Now, of course the specific revelation should be trusted over the general revelation, right? And it's nonsense to trust the general revelation over the specific revelation, right? Wrong. What is actually happening is an interaction between interpretations of revelations.

Revelation A (general) : My father-in-law loves me.
Interpretation A: If my father-in-law loves me he would not do anything to hurt me!
Revelation B (specific) : My father-in-law is hacking off my right upper arm with a hatchet!
Interpretation B: Hacking off my right upper arm hurts me!

Interpretation A of the general revelation conflicts with Interpretation B of the specific revelation. In that case we would indeed take the specific revelation over the general revelation.

But what if right now there is a viral bomb attached to my right wrist with a titanium band, which is 1 minute away from exploding and condemning me to death, and the only way to get it off is to sever my right upper arm and slip it off? (You can tell someone's a 24 fan ... ) Do the revelations conflict any more?

Revelation A (general) : My father-in-law loves me.
Interpretation A: If my father-in-law loves me he would do anything to save my life!
Revelation B (specific) : My father-in-law is hacking off my right upper arm with a hatchet!
Interpretation B: Hacking off my right upper arm saves my life!

Now I have not taken the general revelation "over" the specific revelation, have I? Both revelations can be interpreted to yield the same conclusion.

In the same way, if both the evidence of science and the evidence of Scripture can be interpreted to show that God created life's diversity via evolution, my believing that does not mean that I have taken science "over" scripture. It just means I have found an interpretation of scripture that fits science.

 

[laptoppop]

Such an interpretation is a recent development historically, and does not follow from a direct reading of the text.


this is not true.
the Church for 1500 years used what is known as the 4 fold method of Biblical interpretation. the most desirable method was allegorical. the rise of the preference for the literal begins with Luther and his rebellion against the extravagant medieval allegorical stories that he saw as nothing more than the fanciful illusions of men.

the book of Hebrews itself is an extraordinarily good example of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, primarily Genesis.


what you refer to as a "direct reading" is in fact a modern hermeneutic that relies on Scottish common sense realism and a man-in-the-pew factuality that is a example of using current cultural constructs to misinterpret the past. The point is that this is a particular hermeneutic that was not the only way nor the dominant one in Church history.

Close - but not quite accurate.

Here is a great summary page concerning the classical 4-fold interpretation: http://www.hadavar.org/Four_Ways.html

Some quotes:

1. The P'**** - the verse can have a plain meaning - and

1. The Remez - the verse can have an allegorical meaning

1. The D'rash - the verse can have a practical application

1. The Sod - the verse can teach about the nature of God.

The four ways are not independent - they are four ways of looking at the *same* scripture passage in order to mine the richness inside. Indeed - the same article talks about the P'****:

This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'**** deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.
In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,2"
The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration."3 He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true."4 So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.

This sure sounds fine to me. The modern "fundamentalism" movement was a reaction against the theologies springing from Germany - it was an attempt to return to a historical interpretative framework.

 

[Assyrian]

I would agree with most of this post.

That is really good to hear

However, I still believe it is more intellectually honest to discuss people's actual position rather than an extremist interpretation. OTOH, I would concede that pointing people toward what is believed to be the logical consequences / logical expression of a belief can be valuable.

In terms of the geocentrism and flat earth argument, the progression is not logical. It assumes a straw man initial position for YECs of "All Scripture should be interpreted literally." I don't know of any mature educated YECs that would take that position. Period.

I do recognise that YECs can have a deep understanding of different literary styles in the bible. My argument is not based on an"All Scripture should be interpreted literally" straw man, even having met my fair share of extremely literalist scarecrows on the net. I also suspect debating with TEs can push some YECs into taking a more extreme position that they would otherwise have. But no, I am talking about mature educated YECs here, not hyperliteralists.
You see Calvin and Luther were mature educated and understood literary forms. The difference was, they didn't have established science telling them the earth rotated. They read scriptures that they thought were a plain reading reference to cosmology

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.

Calvin gives us his interpretation of Psalm 93:1 Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. in his commentary on the Psalms:

The Psalmist proves that God will not neglect or abandon the world, from the fact that he created it. A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle &#1488;&#1507;, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it.

Instead, the initial position would be much more something (major wordsmithing required!) like:

The Scriptures consist of many different forms of literary expression, including historical accounts, poetry, figures of speech, parables, songs, etc. One must remember this as one examines various passages. The Scriptures were written at a particular time and understanding the culture of the day can help to inform our understanding, but they were also specifically written to express God's message throughout history unto the present day. The Bible is not just a history book, but is accurate when it explicitly talks about history. The Bible is not a science book, but is accurate when it talks about science. Jesus is the ultimate clearest expression of God we have. The Bible is a specific revelation of God, given to us to convey God's messages to us. God used people to deliver these messages. While the use of various people throughout the years influences the delivery style, the Scriptures are exactly as God wanted, down to the smallest jot and tittle. The messages are His, not theirs. God made this universe and all in it. We can learn about Him through this general revelation. Scientific study can be helpful in investigating this general revelation. Studying the general revelation can help to inform our understanding of the specific revelation of God, and the specific revelation of God can help to inform our understanding of the general revelation as well. However, our own understandings of the general revelation must never take precedence over the specific revelation.

Yes, this is much more "nuanced" than foks come across with - but I believe it is most informative to discuss the mature developed expressions of a position rather than a more simplistic one. There have been a number of less-developed expressions by particular TEs -- but I do not think it is useful to use those as representative of a more developed expression of TE theology.

Mature educated creationists like Henry Morris quote Eccles 1:7All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again as a scriptural description of the hydrological cycle www.icr.org/article/21468/ www.icr.org/article/1994/ AiG uses it too, http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/sy2002/2-7.asp as does http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html Clearly they see this passage as one where the bible 'is accurate when it talks about science'.

Yet 2 verses before this we read Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises which was used by Luther's colleague, the well educated Philip Melanchthon to refute Copernicus. Why is it right to see verse 7 as a literal description of science while verse 5 isn't?

Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon were not wild extremists insisting on taking everything literally, but mature educated believers who sincerely believed this was how we should interpret those scriptures. And it was other mature educated believers who reassessed this interpretation when scientific evidence pointed towards Copernicus being right. But the only reason for having the reassessment was the scientific evidence.
Now YECs think the reassessed interpretation is the plain and obvious reading for anyone with an understanding of scripture. But it wasn't that way before Copernicus.

(I wanted to adress this in particular in a seperate post)
There is a fundamental difference between these two things. The science of Copernicus (i.e. the configuration of the solar system) is a particular, repeatable, verifiable science. It has been confirmed in a variety of ways including space travel. It is in existence right now and can be tested, confirmed, examined in the present.

The age of the earth and the ToE are based on interpretation of current evidence and experiments. They are deduced, not observed. We do not have direct observation over millions of years confirming the ToE. There is particular evidence, such as radiometric dating, which has been interpreted as representing extreme ages -- but other interpretations are available as well.

Observation versus interpretation -- that's the key difference.

Are you saying the difference is that the evidence for heliocentrism is stronger than for evolution? Then it is not a question of whether it is right to reinterpret scripture because of science, but simply how much evidence is needed before we do.

I am not sure how an astronaut in orbit, spinning around the earth is in any better position to observe the earth rotating than a scientist on the ground. Certainly the physics based on geocentric assumptions work, but it all still interpretations of evidence rather than direct observation, and there much more evidence of evolution and the age of the earth than there is for heliocentrism.

If we look historically the church accepted heliocentrism and reinterpreted the bible in the light of it on much less evidence than we have today. And they were right.

 

[USincognito]

I don't have anything to add right now, but I just wanted to comment that this has been one of the most fascinating and edifying threads I'd participated in or read on CF.

 

[stumpjumper]

My position is that Genesis is historical, not just theological.

Having said that - the understanding that it is historical in no way undermines my ability to appreciate and enjoy the multitude of richness in the messages contained within the historical story. In other words, just because it is historical does not mean that it cannot convey a host of other meanings as well.

Hey Laptoppop

What about the Bible as a narrative though? I can understand the position that the Bible contains history and not just theological truths but does that mean that all of it's claims must be historical?

If viewed as a sacred narrative, it makes sense in all of its parts. You can see the parallels between the long ages of kings in the Torah geneologies and the sumerian texts while not discounting the historicity of the kings specified....

I tend to view the Bible from a post-modern narrative framework so I can understand that we will disagree but a narrative approach does not discount that the Bible does contain history....

The burden of proof does not lie with me, but rather with those who would support a non-historical interpretation. Such an interpretation is a recent development historically, and does not follow from a direct reading of the text.

Hmmm. A non-historical interpretation is something that has always been a minority opinion but I don't know if I would say that it is a recent development.

Have you read any Philo of Alexandria?

 

[Pats]

Hmmm. A non-historical interpretation is something that has always been a minority opinion but I don't know if I would say that it is a recent development.

How "minority" is it? I've never been to a non YEC church