Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[Catherineanne]

Where did you come up with 100%?

Even the Bible's best critics admit It has some literal truth in It.

As J Dwight Pentecost puts it (or maybe it was Gail A Riplinger):

The Bible contains allegory --- this does not mean the Bible is allegory.

The Bible contains truth, but that is not the same as saying it has 'literal truth' in it, or that any of it is 'literally true'. Such comments are misleading, because the word 'literal' carries far too much baggage to be meaningful in relation to Scripture.

 

[Bombila]

Probably, AV, because the people they lived among would not have understood, and the necessary message of salvation would have been obscured and perhaps lost while they ran around trying to convince people of the less important news of how the natural world works.

If you take the fact of Jesus birth and life as a human to be true, there is no good reason God would have endowed his incarnation with such information anyway. He was, after all, raised by the humans Mary and Joseph, and presumably God intended him to lead an ordinary human life up to the point of his beginning to preach. How else to experience what it is like to be mortal and constrained by what was known to the people of that time?

It was hard enough for Jesus and his followers to get people to understand the intended spiritual message, and to ensure that message would be understandable 2000 and more years later. If they were also contradicting the things people believed about how the universe really works, about how the stars are suns, about atomic principles, and since there's plenty science we don't know yet, maybe about quantum theories yet to come, how could Jesus et al have ever succeeded in teaching their main philosophy? He would have sounded a hundred times more crazy than he did.

This is why people are correct in saying 'the Bible is not a science book'. It was never intended to be. Scientific knowledge, our understanding of how worldly things work, changes and advances over time, as we refine our knowledge through observation and experiment. God would know that. After all, none of the Bible writers spent much time describing the other peoples of the world - the Aborigines, the First Nations people, the Japanese, the Inuit, yet I'm sure you believe those peoples were around in Biblical times and not poofed into existence some time later. Because the Bible is not a geography book either, or a calculus book, or a book about rocket science.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why people are correct in saying 'the Bible is not a science book'. It was never intended to be. Scientific knowledge, our understanding of how worldly things work, changes and advances over time, as we refine our knowledge through observation and experiment. God would know that. After all, none of the Bible writers spent much time describing the other peoples of the world - the Aborigines, the First Nations people, the Japanese, the Inuit, yet I'm sure you believe those peoples were around in Biblical times and not poofed into existence some time later. Because the Bible is not a geography book either, or a calculus book, or a book about rocket science.

You're preaching to the choir here, Bombila.

I'm fond of saying that using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

But that doesn't mean that such concepts as the universe expanding cannot be inserted into Its pages in anachronistic language.

God is a Master at writing history in advance.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But that doesn't mean that such concepts as the universe expanding cannot be inserted into Its pages in anachronistic language.

God is a Master at writing history in advance.

But not science -- you can shoehorn just about anything into ancient literature, but that doesn't make it the author's original intent.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Where did you come up with 100%?

Even the Bible's best critics admit It has some literal truth in It.

As J Dwight Pentecost puts it (or maybe it was Gail A Riplinger):

The Bible contains allegory --- this does not mean the Bible is allegory.

The Bible contains and is many things -- the trick is having the discernment to see what you're looking at on a given section.

 

[theFijian]

The Bible contains truth, but that is not the same as saying it has 'literal truth' in it, or that any of it is 'literally true'.

The Bible certainly does contain truth, but it is also misleading to suggest that it does not contain any literal truth and rather stretching it to say that it has no place in exegesis.

Such comments are misleading, because the word 'literal' carries far too much baggage to be meaningful in relation to Scripture.

'Literal' does carry a lot of baggage, to discount it altogether though as not being meaningful is a bit of an overreaction imo. Or were you alluding to a more meaningful alternative?

 

[AV1611VET]

But not science -- you can shoehorn just about anything into ancient literature, but that doesn't make it the author's original intent.

I don't know if it was the Author's intent, either --- but one thing is for certain:

It certainly shows He knew what He was talking about.

My personal take on these 'anachronistic tidbits' is that they were inserted to show the Bible's veracity --- especially in the latter days, when It would come into question vis-a-vis science.

In other words, in the latter days, as interest in science rises, and interest in the Bible declines, God has inserted little tidbits of science that can be used as an appeal to rekindle interest in Its pages.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible contains and is many things -- the trick is having the discernment to see what you're looking at on a given section.

I wholeheartedly agree.

That's called Biblical maturity.

The milk of the Word vs the meat of the Word.

 

[Catherineanne]

The Bible certainly does contain truth, but it is also misleading to suggest that it does not contain any literal truth and rather stretching it to say that it has no place in exegesis.

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

I did not say there is no literal truth in the Bible, but neither would I be likely to use the word literal for the truth it contains. I would prefer to say it contains historically verifiable information, or spiritual truth. Neither did I say that there is no place in exegesis for discussing what historically verifiable events may or may not be contained in Scripture. What I said was:

"Scripture says nothing whatever about literality. This is an anachronistic interpretation, and has no place in Biblical exegesis."

'Literal' does carry a lot of baggage, to discount it altogether though as not being meaningful is a bit of an overreaction imo. Or were you alluding to a more meaningful alternative?

What is not meaningful is to discuss Scripture in relation to literality, because that places a burden on Scripture that it was never meant to bear. Historicity is fine.

 

[Bombila]

You're preaching to the choir here, Bombila.

I'm fond of saying that using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

But that doesn't mean that such concepts as the universe expanding cannot be inserted into Its pages in anachronistic language.

God is a Master at writing history in advance.

But it was and is not necessary that such concepts would be put into its pages, AV, and by claiming that they are there, as you do, you portray God as being a sly sort of entity, making obscure allusions to natural reality that would not be understood for centuries, if ever. If it were true (God writing scientific history in advance), why would he make sure just a tiny smattering of the multitude of scientific concepts we are now aware of would make it into the pages of the relatively modern translation you use? Why not everything?

Surely if God is real, His intent with an inspired book containing an important record and a vital message of salvation would not be to advance scientific knowledge, or geographical knowledge, as humans, He knew, would be perfectly capable of finding such thing out themselves. It does not make sense, and if you cannot make sense of God's message without wringing the scriptures until something you like is squeezed out, then that scripture is obscurantist and deceiving, which does not fit the profile of a well-intentioned God.

Not even Bill Gates diary, AV, but his laundry list and a couple of recipe cards, out of which you would get no computer science, but maybe a good meal if you followed the recipe's directions.

 

[redwards]

Nor can I.

So we're agreed that the bible is generally absurd and abhorrent?

Cool --- with enough funding, you could go on field trips to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India respectively.

Or maybe become an exchange student?See that? It's working already!

Pass on Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't mind seeing the others. But I covered a lot more than 4 religions in one world religions class in college; I don't see why a high school history class would have to spend more than a month or two covering the basics.

No better way to cure that atheism, is there?

Is it worth me pointing out that this is the inverse of your first sentence, or are you busy trying to pretend there's some poignant point to your contradiction?

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely if God is real, His intent with an inspired book containing an important record and a vital message of salvation would not be to advance scientific knowledge...

Who says He wrote the Bible to advance scientific knowledge?

I said there are 'tidbits' of scientific knowledge in It --- just tidbits.

 

[Catherineanne]

So we're agreed that the bible is generally absurd and abhorrent?

The Bible is morally neutral, like any other object. People can be generally absurd and abhorrent, but books can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

So we're agreed that the bible is generally absurd and abhorrent?

We're agreed that you think It is --- how's that?

Pass on Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't mind seeing the others. But I covered a lot more than 4 religions in one world religions class in college; I don't see why a high school history class would have to spend more than a month or two covering the basics.

I thought I said, 'Christian Theology'?

If you want a student to be exposed to all this other stuff, they can do it overseas --- not here.

This is a Christian nation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is morally neutral, like any other object. People can be generally absurd and abhorrent, but books can't.

Unless the Book is a Living Book?

For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

 

[Catherineanne]

Unless the Book is a Living Book?

Where does the Bible claim to be a 'Living Book', whatever that is when it is at home?

Originally Posted by Hebrews 4:12a

For the word of God is quick, and powerful...
​

This refers to the spoken word of God, not to a book.

The Bible is neither quick nor powerful if it sits on a shelf unread. It is just a book.

 

[atomweaver]

It doesn't. Engineering is largely mathematical.

The mathematical aspect of engineering is used to describe real-world phenomena, though. So, if the supernatural is as interwoven with reality as you seem to imply, you should be able to describe how it affects your work... using mathematics, even.

It seems too convenient that the supernatural seemingly applies only to scientific disciplines other than your own.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where does the Bible claim to be a 'Living Book'...

For the second time:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

See definition 6a under Answers.com for "quick".

 

[theFijian]

I don't know if it was the Author's intent, either --- but one thing is for certain:

It certainly shows He knew what He was talking about.

My personal take on these 'anachronistic tidbits' is that they were inserted to show the Bible's veracity --- especially in the latter days, when It would come into question vis-a-vis science.

In other words, in the latter days, as interest in science rises, and interest in the Bible declines, God has inserted little tidbits of science that can be used as an appeal to rekindle interest in Its pages.

So you don't think that people will be drawn to scripture by the inherent beauty of the gospel or the person of Christ, but they will be by little 'tidbits' of science. So you, by admission, believe scientific truth to be more attractive than spiritual truth. You have sold out to naturalism. Either that or you believe the third person of the Trinity to be impotent.

 

[theFijian]

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

I did not say there is no literal truth in the Bible, but neither would I be likely to use the word literal for the truth it contains. I would prefer to say it contains historically verifiable information, or spiritual truth. Neither did I say that there is no place in exegesis for discussing what historically verifiable events may or may not be contained in Scripture. What I said was:

"Scripture says nothing whatever about literality. This is an anachronistic interpretation, and has no place in Biblical exegesis."



What is not meaningful is to discuss Scripture in relation to literality, because that places a burden on Scripture that it was never meant to bear. Historicity is fine.

But when I read in scripture to love my neighbour I definitely read it in the literal sense, to alegorise here would be to empty it of all it's meaning and power although as you point out Christ didn't always speak in such a straightforward manner. Obviouisly I accept the histority of that passage to be able to take that command literally.