The Biblical Theology of Science

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You seem to be ignoring the repeated answer that science does not go out the window, but that the sphere and boundaries of science are bounded in such a way that real science cannot contradict Scripture. Perhaps you are capable of grasping that science must be wrong in all cases where it seems to disagree with the moral imperatives of Scripture. Acknowledging that is progress.

Perhaps your eyes might also be opened to the limitations inherent in historical reconstructions based on the assuption that miracles never occur. If the method assumes miracles do not occur, the conclusions of the method do not contradict Scripture, the assumptions do!

Begin Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11):

METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS ACCEPTED BY ALL SCIENTISTS

1) The Uniformity of law - Natural laws are invariant in space and time. John Stuart Mill (1881) argued that such a postulate of uniformity must be invoked if we are to have any confidence in the validity of inductive inference; for if laws change, then an hypothesis about cause and effect gains no support from repeated observations - the law may alter the next time and yield a different result. We cannot "prove" the assumption of invariant laws; we cannot even venture forth into the world to gather empirical evidence for it. It is an a priori methodological assumption made in order to practice science; it is a warrant for inductive inference (Gould, 1965).

End Exact Quote (Gould 1984, p. 11)

Gould, Stephen Jay. "Toward the vindication of punctuational change."Catastrophes and earth history (1984): 9-16.
also see:
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Is uniformitarianism necessary?" American Journal of Science 263.3 (1965): 223-228.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Time's arrow, time's cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery of geological time. Harvard University Press, 1987.

Science doesn't talk about morals. The question I asked you wasn't about morals.

I'll ask the question again: If you were able to talk to someone from the earlier times, and said that the Earth was round, and he accused you of infidelity to the Bible, would you change your mind on the question of the shape of the Earth?
 
Upvote 0
Nov 25, 2015
18
2
56
✟7,752.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Science doesn't talk about morals. The question I asked you wasn't about morals.

I'll ask the question again: If you were able to talk to someone from the earlier times, and said that the Earth was round, and he accused you of infidelity to the Bible, would you change your mind on the question of the shape of the Earth?

So you are so offended that I won't answer a question about an impossible hypothetical that you refuse to continue the conversation on a more rational basis?

If one's premises are wrong, one should not throw tantrums that others refuse to answer questions based on false premises. Perhaps one should face their faulty premises instead of insisting on answers to flawed questions.

The possibility of revisiting both science and Scripture when the two appear to conflict has been acknowledged. But what else but stubborness or folly can explain the refusal to recognize the substantial differences between the observation of operational science that the earth is (more or less) round and the indirect historical inferences based on flawed methodological assumptions that claim to contradict the Scriptural accounts of origins? Further, what other than stubborness or folly can one ascribe to confounding the Scriptural support for a flat earth with the Scriptural support for a six day creation?

Can you please explain how the Scriptural support for a flat earth is as strong as the Scriptural support for a six day creation?

You should know that Christian scholars throughout history have known that the earth is round and that the idea that there was ever a consensus on a flat earth among Christian scholars is a myth. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
As mentioned above, this is not at issue. The question is whether the science goes out the window?

Is the Earth round? If so, you've taken the easy, but bad, way out.

Science does NOT go out the window and should never do. So? Does that say the Scripture must not mean what it says?

The earth was not necessarily round in the mind of Moses or David. If I lived at their time and read the SAME words in the Scripture, I might suspect that the earth is round. But it would NOT fit my scientific understanding at that time (a flat earth). Should I follow the ancient science and think that the Scripture must make a wrong suggestion?

You should know that the Scripture seemingly gives MANY scientifically wrong ideas to people at their time. I can give you many many examples. (e.g. mountains will be "moved" away, or crumbled into pieces. Do you think it is still not scientifically true today?)
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you are so offended that I won't answer a question about an impossible hypothetical that you refuse to continue the conversation on a more rational basis?

If one's premises are wrong, one should not throw tantrums that others refuse to answer questions based on false premises. Perhaps one should face their faulty premises instead of insisting on answers to flawed questions.

The possibility of revisiting both science and Scripture when the two appear to conflict has been acknowledged. But what else but stubborness or folly can explain the refusal to recognize the substantial differences between the observation of operational science that the earth is (more or less) round and the indirect historical inferences based on flawed methodological assumptions that claim to contradict the Scriptural accounts of origins? Further, what other than stubborness or folly can one ascribe to confounding the Scriptural support for a flat earth with the Scriptural support for a six day creation?

Can you please explain how the Scriptural support for a flat earth is as strong as the Scriptural support for a six day creation?

How you respond to that hypothetical indicates how I should respond to you. That the Earth is old, to me, is like it being round. The ancient person never could have traveled around the Earth, never could have seen a picture from space, had no developed idea of gravity that would pull massive bodies into spheroids. All he had was a few pieces of strange data and his reason -- and that's pitted against passages that tell him that certain things were created on certain parts of the day (as though there's a universal frame of reference on a round Earth), that the Earth is God's footstool, that there is a solid dome above the Earth (with windows in it, no less), that Jesus was able to stand at a very high place and see all the kingdoms of the world, etc.

That you are resistant to answering the question to the point where you try to change the topic makes me think that you haven't actually thought this through.

You should know that Christian scholars throughout history have known that the earth is round and that the idea that there was ever a consensus on a flat earth among Christian scholars is a myth. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Oh, I know this. However, there were Church Fathers who thought it was flat and argued this point from the Bible. And there were so many Christians among the laity who thought it was flat that St. Augustine was concerned that they were exposing the Bible to ridicule among non-Christians who knew better. I have the same concern, today.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Science does NOT go out the window and should never do. So? Does that say the Scripture must not mean what it says?

The earth was not necessarily round in the mind of Moses or David. If I lived at their time and read the SAME words in the Scripture, I might suspect that the earth is round. But it would NOT fit my scientific understanding at that time (a flat earth). Should I follow the ancient science and think that the Scripture must make a wrong suggestion?

You should know that the Scripture seemingly gives MANY scientifically wrong ideas to people at their time. I can give you many many examples. (e.g. mountains will be "moved" away, or crumbled into pieces. Do you think it is still not scientifically true today?)

This is one possible resolution. But then there's no problem with an old Earth, either. Sure, Moses and David didn't know about that, and so their language reflected a young Earth... even though we aren't supposed to infer that from the text.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This is one possible resolution. But then there's no problem with an old Earth, either. Sure, Moses and David didn't know about that, and so their language reflected a young Earth... even though we aren't supposed to infer that from the text.

True. And that idea might be scientifically true at their time.
But now it seems to turn around and becomes scientifically false.
However, their words are still clearly printed in the Scripture.
And it COULD become scientifically true again.
This is more than a wishful thinking out of nothing. We already know what is needed in science in order to make it true.

For now, you can do two things:
1. To reject that ancient descriptions and claim it is a mistake. This implies the Scripture is not literally true.
2. To assign an allegorical meaning to the descriptions, and claim that the Scripture is scientifically wrong, but is still spiritually true.

For me, I would stick with that the Scripture description of a young earth is literally and scientifically true, although I do not know exactly how at this time.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
True. And that idea might be scientifically true at their time.
But now it seems to turn around and becomes scientifically false.
However, their words are still clearly printed in the Scripture.
And it COULD become scientifically true again.
This is more than a wishful thinking out of nothing. We already know what is needed in science in order to make it true.

For now, you can do two things:
1. To reject that ancient descriptions and claim it is a mistake. This implies the Scripture is not literally true.
2. To assign an allegorical meaning to the descriptions, and claim that the Scripture is scientifically wrong, but is still spiritually true.

For me, I would stick with that the Scripture description of a young earth is literally and scientifically true, although I do not know exactly how at this time.

But you don't do the same thing for the shape of the Earth. With every passing year, you get access to more evidence that tells you it's round. Do you hold out hope that it will one day be shown flat so that the Scriptures can be literally true?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
But you don't do the same thing for the shape of the Earth. With every passing year, you get access to more evidence that tells you it's round. Do you hold out hope that it will one day be shown flat so that the Scriptures can be literally true?

I don't think the Scripture says clearly that it is flat. It is only an interpretation. That is what I meant by "science of that time". In the ancient time, the prevailed "science" had nothing to against a flat earth.

Of course, no one think the earth is flat now. SOOO... we can appreciate so much on those verses in the Scripture that imply a round earth. It is simply that no one could or liked to interpret them that way in early history.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't think the Scripture says clearly that it is flat. It is only an interpretation. That is what I meant by "science of that time". In the ancient time, the prevailed "science" had nothing to against a flat earth.

Of course, no one think the earth is flat now. SOOO... we can appreciate so much on those verses in the Scripture that imply a round earth. It is simply that no one could or liked to interpret them that way in early history.

There are a lot of passages that if you take them literally, say the Earth is flat. Apparently, they were frequently used against non-Christians who thought that the Earth was round in the fourth century. Why are the passages about the age of the Earth different? What is the distinction?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There are a lot of passages that if you take them literally, say the Earth is flat. Apparently, they were frequently used against non-Christians who thought that the Earth was round in the fourth century. Why are the passages about the age of the Earth different? What is the distinction?

You are getting to specifics.
Could you tell me one verse which clearly suggests a flat earth? Is one of them the "four corners of the land?"

If you like to, we could examine verses of ages at later time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are getting to specifics.
Could you tell me one verse which clearly suggests a flat earth? Is one of them the "four corners of the land?"

If you like to, we could examine verses of ages at later time.

Yeah, that'll work.

I think a passage that's good to use as an analogy is the vision God gave to King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel:

"Upon my bed this is what I saw;
there was a tree at the centre of the earth,
and its height was great.
The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth."
(Daniel 4:10-11, NRSV)

Obviously, this is broken from a round-Earth perspective. How do you interpret this?
 
Upvote 0