Science and the Bible

[DennisF]

Do you understand the development of children, how they grow and mature?

Parietal Lobes: These regions are crucial for numerical processing and spatial reasoning
Parietal Lobes: These regions help with spatial awareness and coordination, important for tasks like drawing and sculpting2.

When we study the brain using a MRI the SAME part of the brain does math and art. You can not do art without science and you can not do science without art.

If we look at primitive buildings we can see how the brain was developing. We see art and architecture develop together at the same time as the brain develops.
View attachment 354650View attachment 354651

Your comparison is speculative without much more detailed development. Why not stick to the topic of the thread? That's what i am going to do.

 

[Diamond72]

Your comparison is speculative without much more detailed development.

I am only talking about the results of the research using MRI. The medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) plays a fascinating role in how we perceive beauty, whether in art, music, or other forms. Research has shown that this area of the brain is activated when we experience something we find beautiful, suggesting that beauty is processed as an abstract concept within the brain12.

University College London (UCL) has conducted fascinating research at the intersection of mathematics and MRI technology. One notable study explored how mathematical beauty activates the same brain region as great art or music. Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe the brain activity of mathematicians when they viewed mathematical formulas they had previously rated as beautiful, neutral, or ugly1.

Additionally, UCL has developed mathematical equations to predict happiness, showing how moment-to-moment happiness reflects not just how well things are going, but whether things are going better than expected2.

It’s incredible how mathematics can be applied to such diverse fields, from neuroscience to psychology.

 

[Fervent]

Imposing the Bible onto science is to make science into something that it isn't. That isn't to say that science and the Bible are incompatible, but the process of science involves isolating and studying the relationships between objects and building a theory to predict future behaviors. Because it has a narrow focus, a heuristic like Occam's razor is necessary to preserve its integrity. Scientists can and should engage in science without relying on the Bible and anyone pursuing "science" that inserts unnecessary limitations on where the theories can go has abandoned actually doing science.

Conversly, science cannot be neatly imposed onto the Bible either. Science and its conclusions cannot speak to whether or not the Bible is true because if the Bible is true the primary assumption that science is contingent upon must be rejected. We cannot imagine the world without divine intervention and engage honestly with the texts of the Bible at the same time. But science assumes that divine intervention doesn't happen, so the only way to apply science to the Bible is to assume that the contents of the Bible are false narratives. Acceptance of the Biblical account is a matter of faith, which is only loosely addressable in a scientific manner.

There are ways to reconcile the two, but the synthesis of science and the Bible involves critically reflecting on what we believe to be true about each rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The apparent conflict comes when we try to impose one on the other rather than leaving them as distinct avenues for inquiring about reality.

 

[DennisF]

Imposing the Bible onto science is to make science into something that it isn't. That isn't to say that science and the Bible are incompatible, but the process of science involves isolating and studying the relationships between objects and building a theory to predict future behaviors. Because it has a narrow focus, a heuristic like Occam's razor is necessary to preserve its integrity. Scientists can and should engage in science without relying on the Bible and anyone pursuing "science" that inserts unnecessary limitations on where the theories can go has abandoned actually doing science.

Conversly, science cannot be neatly imposed onto the Bible either. Science and its conclusions cannot speak to whether or not the Bible is true because if the Bible is true the primary assumption that science is contingent upon must be rejected. We cannot imagine the world without divine intervention and engage honestly with the texts of the Bible at the same time. But science assumes that divine intervention doesn't happen, so the only way to apply science to the Bible is to assume that the contents of the Bible are false narratives. Acceptance of the Biblical account is a matter of faith, which is only loosely addressable in a scientific manner.

There are ways to reconcile the two, but the synthesis of science and the Bible involves critically reflecting on what we believe to be true about each rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The apparent conflict comes when we try to impose one on the other rather than leaving them as distinct avenues for inquiring about reality.

Well put. The Garden directive to Adam is the ground for applying observation and reason to the creation.
Francis Bacon gave a "two books" view of the relationship between science and scripture. Each is a book as a source of knowledge, and because both are sources of truth when each is adequately understood they must ultimately be in harmony with each other.

Once upon a time, my wife and I lived in NW PA and we had as guests Michael, the son of the Dutch ambassador to the U.S., and his entourage from Somaliland and his wife, Flory from Djibouti. The young Somali sitting next to me at the dinner table was a future leader in Somaliland, and the Somalis were Somali-style Muslims. I had previously given them a tour of our house including my electronics laboratory. The Somali tribal leader had a question for me at the table. He spoke Somali, which was translated by Flory into French; Michael then translated it from French to English. And the question was: how do I reconcile faith in God with all this technology? I give the two-books answer of Bacon and the translation goes the other way around the table. The young tribal leader responds, the translation goes around again, and the answer is: He agrees. So there is at least one Somaliland leader who thinks as we do!

 

[Diamond72]

Imposing the Bible onto science is to make science into something that it isn't.

You can not have Science without the Bible and you cannot have the Bible without Science. Just like we need both hands to function.

 

[DennisF]

You can not have Science without the Bible and you cannot have the Bible without Science. Just like we need both hands to function.

The two-books analogy of Francis Bacon is now supplemented by the two-hands analogy of "Diamond72". Indeed! Thanks.

 

[Fervent]

Well put. The Garden directive to Adam is the ground for applying observation and reason to the creation.
Francis Bacon gave a "two books" view of the relationship between science and scripture. Each is a book as a source of knowledge, and because both are sources of truth when each is adequately understood they must ultimately be in harmony with each other.

Once upon a time, my wife and I lived in NW PA and we had as guests Michael, the son of the Dutch ambassador to the U.S., and his entourage from Somaliland and his wife, Flory from Djibouti. The young Somali sitting next to me at the dinner table was a future leader in Somaliland, and the Somalis were Somali-style Muslims. I had previously given them a tour of our house including my electronics laboratory. The Somali tribal leader had a question for me at the table. He spoke Somali, which was translated by Flory into French; Michael then translated it from French to English. And the question was: how do I reconcile faith in God with all this technology? I give the two-books answer of Bacon and the translation goes the other way around the table. The young tribal leader responds, the translation goes around again, and the answer is: He agrees. So there is at least one Somaliland leader who thinks as we do!

What an excellent story, yeah the "two books" view definitely makes sense. Though even with an approach like that caution is required because there are often unspoken agreements within the respective approaches that can give them the air of incompatibility. As an example, an assumption that a lot of Christians make that inevitably creates friction is the assumption that the Word of God and the text of the Bible are exactly and inseparably the same thing. Alternatively, it's easy to mistake science's working materialist metaphysics as being bound up with the predictive success of science rather than simply being an assumed but necessary theoretical element to provide meaningful explanations. It's quite easy to miss that "everything is made of matter" is defined as being true in order to create the models science creates and take it as a statement about substance rather than behavior and interaction.

 

[DennisF]

What an excellent story, yeah the "two books" view definitely makes sense. Though even with an approach like that caution is required because there are often unspoken agreements within the respective approaches that can give them the air of incompatibility. As an example, an assumption that a lot of Christians make that inevitably creates friction is the assumption that the Word of God and the text of the Bible are exactly and inseparably the same thing. Alternatively, it's easy to mistake science's working materialist metaphysics as being bound up with the predictive success of science rather than simply being an assumed but necessary theoretical element to provide meaningful explanations. It's quite easy to miss that "everything is made of matter" is defined as being true in order to create the models science creates and take it as a statement about substance rather than behavior and interaction.

"materialist metaphysics" - what some Christians in science call "methodological naturalism": science as a human enterprise is not limited in physical subject-matter - anything physical is fair game to study - but has limits in its methods. For instance, the study of history is not science because it is not subject to experiment (at least for those who do not have time machines!). Yet some of what has gone on in the past can be deduced from scientific extrapolation, in geology and astronomy, because records of past events are in existence in the present. Taken to the limit, all experimental science is based on history because the moment any data is recorded it becomes historical.

At this point in life, I lean toward the direction that as humans we have three sources of data: physical, from creation, social, from human nature (also part of creation), and historical (part of the creation of space-time). The basis for Christian faith as found in scripture draws mainly from a selective thread of human history that turns out to be the main thread in all of human history - a big topic in itself considering that Christians and non-Christians alike view the history of Israel as a minor country with a minor impact on world history, but that is not true if you pick the correct answer to the critical question: Whatever happened to Israel after the Assyrian deportations?; secondly, scripture tells us about human nature, a topic of the social sciences, and last, it tends to not push the question of what is the correct answer to some scientific questions but assumes whatever view is at the time in order to make a different point.

Because we have been empowered to do scientific research, this kind of knowledge is not the concern for scripture to give us. For instance, in OT times it was believed that inheritance of genetic traits was passed down by the father alone while in the NT, it is understood as we do, that both father and mother contribute genetically. Bible-bashers can have a field day with such material while not understanding that God is not going to make an issue out of the contemporary understanding of the creation if it detracts from the important message about something entirely different, a social issue.

 

[Fervent]

"materialist metaphysics" - what some Christians in science call "methodological naturalism": science as a human enterprise is not limited in physical subject-matter - anything physical is fair game to study - but has limits in its methods. For instance, the study of history is not science because it is not subject to experiment (at least for those who do not have time machines!). Yet some of what has gone on in the past can be deduced from scientific extrapolation, in geology and astronomy, because records of past events are in existence in the present. Taken to the limit, all experimental science is based on history because the moment any data is recorded it becomes historical.

No, I'm all for methodological naturalism but the way you speak demonstrates my statement of risk. Science operates on 2 primary assumptions, that "the universe" or some constituent thereof known as "matter" or by some other "physical" description is fundamental in its ontology. That is to say, it depends on nothing prior to itself to sustain its existence. The second is that the universe is a causally closed system, with no outside intervention. Neither of these are objectionable as a matter of practicality, they serve to allow us to look to our observations and engage in hypothesis-testing of a limited nature and improve our theories about how "objects" interact. But these are metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality and existence that are taken in order to do science rather than necessarily being true. But because they are often unstated assumptions they are often subscribed to without critical consideration or defense. When we engage in science what we are studying is the interactions that exist between ourselves and the objects of our sense experience, but we have no way of determining what the thing-in-itself is or what the substance of reality is. Ontology is supplied to the scientific process because it would be quite cumbersome for us to talk about scientific theories if we stuck to describing them in ways that avoided assuming an ontology and stuck to phenomenological statements, but that ontology remains metaphysical in nature rather than belonging to the field of established fact.

At this point in life, I lean toward the direction that as humans we have three sources of data: physical, from creation, social, from human nature (also part of creation), and historical (part of the creation of space-time). The basis for Christian faith as found in scripture draws mainly from a selective thread of human history that turns out to be the main thread in all of human history - a big topic in itself considering that Christians and non-Christians alike view the history of Israel as a minor country with a minor impact on world history, but that is not true if you pick the correct answer to the critical question: Whatever happened to Israel after the Assyrian deportations?; secondly, scripture tells us about human nature, a topic of the social sciences, and last, it tends to not push the question of what is the correct answer to some scientific questions but assumes whatever view is at the time in order to make a different point.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness about this.

Because we have been empowered to do scientific research, this kind of knowledge is not the concern for scripture to give us. For instance, in OT times it was believed that inheritance of genetic traits was passed down by the father alone while in the NT, it is understood as we do, that both father and mother contribute genetically. Bible-bashers can have a field day with such material while not understanding that God is not going to make an issue out of the contemporary understanding of the creation if it detracts from the important message about something entirely different, a social issue.

I agree, but there's a need for believer's to exercise caution about the kinds of assumptions that they inadvertantly pick up along the way. The issue with science isn't a matter of the kinds of conclusions that it reaches, but about the uncritical adoption of metaphysical understandings that make something besides God fundamental.

 

[DennisF]

No, I'm all for methodological naturalism but the way you speak demonstrates my statement of risk. Science operates on 2 primary assumptions, that "the universe" or some constituent thereof known as "matter" or by some other "physical" description is fundamental in its ontology. That is to say, it depends on nothing prior to itself to sustain its existence. The second is that the universe is a causally closed system, with no outside intervention. Neither of these are objectionable as a matter of practicality, they serve to allow us to look to our observations and engage in hypothesis-testing of a limited nature and improve our theories about how "objects" interact. But these are metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality and existence that are taken in order to do science rather than necessarily being true. But because they are often unstated assumptions they are often subscribed to without critical consideration or defense. When we engage in science what we are studying is the interactions that exist between ourselves and the objects of our sense experience, but we have no way of determining what the thing-in-itself is or what the substance of reality is. Ontology is supplied to the scientific process because it would be quite cumbersome for us to talk about scientific theories if we stuck to describing them in ways that avoided assuming an ontology and stuck to phenomenological statements, but that ontology remains metaphysical in nature rather than belonging to the field of established fact.\

Okay, I understand your distinction - an important one - between methods used in science and between the philosophical underpinnings of the whole enterprise. It is metaphysical versus methodological naturalism.

A molecular chemist friend of mine of many years, Walter Thorson, emeritus prof. of the U. of Alberta in Edmonton, has expounded at some length on this in plenary lectures he gave at the American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting in the 1990s. I haven't looked any time soon but they are very likely on the ASA website. Search for "Thorson". I was once in the ASA, a fellowship of Christians in the sciences.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness about this.

I agree, but there's a need for believer's to exercise caution about the kinds of assumptions that they inadvertantly pick up along the way. The issue with science isn't a matter of the kinds of conclusions that it reaches, but about the uncritical adoption of metaphysical understandings that make something besides God fundamental.

!!

 

[Diamond72]

The two-books analogy of Francis Bacon is now supplemented by the two-hands analogy of "Diamond72". Indeed! Thanks.

Yes, Francis Bacon proposed the idea of “two books” to describe the relationship between science and scripture. He believed that God has provided us with two sources of knowledge: the Book of Scripture (the Bible) and the Book of Nature (the natural world). According to Bacon, these two books are complementary and should be studied together to gain a fuller understanding of truth12.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, I understand your distinction - an important one - between methods used in science and between the philosophical underpinnings of the whole enterprise. It is metaphysical versus methodological naturalism.

Yeah, and one that too often gets lost in discussions on the subject and on discussions of the role of scientific fact in the conversation about the existence of God. Too often we get bogged down in debates that are impossible to move either side towards the other because there isn't enough common ground to honestly debate, and both sides smugly walking away feeling smugly victorious because what points they did make don't get appropriately addressed. When we boil the whole thing down, arguing things like I.D. or Theistic evolution or Genesis literalism is inevitably unscientific because such things introduce unnecessary baggage to the question, but unfortunately skeptics have inserted an equally unscientific metaphysical understanding into the center of the question in order to make it a question of evolution vs God. Rather than being able to debate the science on its merits(and I'm not saying there is any real debate), it becomes a matter of ideological dispute.

A molecular chemist friend of mine of many years, Walter Thorson, emeritus prof. of the U. of Alberta in Edmonton, has expounded at some length on this in plenary lectures he gave at the American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting in the 1990s. I haven't looked any time soon but they are very likely on the ASA website. Search for "Thorson". I was once in the ASA, a fellowship of Christians in the sciences.

That sounds fascinating, I'll have to look it up.

!!

 

[DennisF]

Yeah, and one that too often gets lost in discussions on the subject and on discussions of the role of scientific fact in the conversation about the existence of God. Too often we get bogged down in debates that are impossible to move either side towards the other because there isn't enough common ground to honestly debate, and both sides smugly walking away feeling smugly victorious because what points they did make don't get appropriately addressed. When we boil the whole thing down, arguing things like I.D. or Theistic evolution or Genesis literalism is inevitably unscientific because such things introduce unnecessary baggage to the question, but unfortunately skeptics have inserted an equally unscientific metaphysical understanding into the center of the question in order to make it a question of evolution vs God. Rather than being able to debate the science on its merits(and I'm not saying there is any real debate), it becomes a matter of ideological dispute.

That sounds fascinating, I'll have to look it up.

Once upon a time (1990s), I was Newsletter Editor for the ASA, went to the Annual Meetings, and have known all the major players in the Debate: all the ID people (Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Phil Johnson - the ringleader, Jon Wells, Walter Bradley, Robert Kaita, Michael Behe, and the best one: Steve Meyer (https://idthefuture.com/1259). Theistic evolution or evolutionary creationists include Denis Lamoureux, Howard Van Til, and Keith Miller. ASA is the largest and oldest evangelical-founded organization of Christians in science and has historically been intended to be a place where Christians in science can discuss all the angles as a forum. However, given the divisiveness of the evolution-creation issue, ASA has been pulled internally by both ID and TE proponents. The IDers have largely left or at least were no longer prominent when I left ASA (for other reasons), and migrated toward the Discovery Institute in Seattle, funded by the first-generation entrepreneur Weyerhauser. ASA has departed from being a neutral or objective forum by taking a pro-mRNA drug position during the covid affair, for instance, in the ASA journal (PSCF) and the TE voice has largely taken over the journal. Because of the high-spirited tension between IDers and TEers in ASA, the book ASA produced, God Did It, But How? covers the common ground of affirming the Creator while recognizing the often speculative nature of the science-religion debate.

I do not always see a clear line of demarcation between ID and TE except at the extremes. Clouding this categorization is the young versus old earth issue, for instance. There have been both young-earth and old-earth IDers. People like Walter Thorson would not be included in the grouping with ID but then he is supportive of the book The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olson (1984, Philosophical Library Inc.) who, like the IDers, are critical of problems with evolutionary theory. There are different levels of sophistication in what is being said. I believe Steve Meyer is one of the more profound. The young-earth creationists (YECs) of the Henry Morris, Duane Gish variety have all but died out because the weight of the load to provide convincing support needed for a young earth is crushing. (It is not unlike the problem of demonstrating a superior explanation for a flat earth.) Morris and Gish exited the ASA in the late 1970s and ASA lost almost all of its YEC influence. The YECers wanted ASA to take a YEC position, and when they lost, they left. The IDers did not leave so dramatically but shifted their center of attention elsewhere.

So, if someone held a gun to my head and made me choose a label to invoke, it would probably be ID but with TE leanings. I am an electronics research engineer; what do I know of the many specialties in science required to have an expert opinion (should one exist) on how God created? I have a few published articles in the ASA Journal (now called PSCF) and one in the ID journal Origins & Design. Those probably say enough for extended discussion.

 

[Fervent]

Once upon a time (1990s), I was Newsletter Editor for the ASA, went to the Annual Meetings, and have known all the major players in the Debate: all the ID people (Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Phil Johnson - the ringleader, Jon Wells, Walter Bradley, Robert Kaita, Michael Behe, and the best one: Steve Meyer (https://idthefuture.com/1259). Theistic evolution or evolutionary creationists include Denis Lamoureux, Howard Van Til, and Keith Miller. ASA is the largest and oldest evangelical-founded organization of Christians in science and has historically been intended to be a place where Christians in science can discuss all the angles as a forum. However, given the divisiveness of the evolution-creation issue, ASA has been pulled internally by both ID and TE proponents. The IDers have largely left or at least were no longer prominent when I left ASA (for other reasons), and migrated toward the Discovery Institute in Seattle, funded by the first-generation entrepreneur Weyerhauser. ASA has departed from being a neutral or objective forum by taking a pro-mRNA drug position during the covid affair, for instance, in the ASA journal (PSCF) and the TE voice has largely taken over the journal. Because of the high-spirited tension between IDers and TEers in ASA, the book ASA produced, God Did It, But How? covers the common ground of affirming the Creator while recognizing the often speculative nature of the science-religion debate.

I do not always see a clear line of demarcation between ID and TE except at the extremes. Clouding this categorization is the young versus old earth issue, for instance. There have been both young-earth and old-earth IDers. People like Walter Thorson would not be included in the grouping with ID but then he is supportive of the book The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olson (1984, Philosophical Library Inc.) who, like the IDers, are critical of problems with evolutionary theory. There are different levels of sophistication in what is being said. I believe Steve Meyer is one of the more profound. The young-earth creationists (YECs) of the Henry Morris, Duane Gish variety have all but died out because the weight of the load to provide convincing support needed for a young earth is crushing. (It is not unlike the problem of demonstrating a superior explanation for a flat earth.) Morris and Gish exited the ASA in the late 1970s and ASA lost almost all of its YEC influence. The YECers wanted ASA to take a YEC position, and when they lost, they left. The IDers did not leave so dramatically but shifted their center of attention elsewhere.

So, if someone held a gun to my head and made me choose a label to invoke, it would probably be ID but with TE leanings. I am an electronics research engineer; what do I know of the many specialties in science required to have an expert opinion (should one exist) on how God created? I have a few published articles in the ASA Journal (now called PSCF) and one in the ID journal Origins & Design. Those probably say enough for extended discussion.

That's a very interesting story. The way I see it, evolution is evolution. There's no need to complicate it by imposing a metaphysical understanding on it, we can understand it in terms of being a mechanic and then accept that the metaphysical stuff is going to cause some disagreement but that shouldn't be an issue for reasonable people. The young earth/old earth stuff I view more as a matter of hermeneutics than anything else, and it seems to me that a great deal of confusion comes because people don't seem to understand the function of Occam's razor.

 

[DennisF]

That's a very interesting story. The way I see it, evolution is evolution. There's no need to complicate it by imposing a metaphysical understanding on it, we can understand it in terms of being a mechanic and then accept that the metaphysical stuff is going to cause some disagreement but that shouldn't be an issue for reasonable people. The young earth/old earth stuff I view more as a matter of hermeneutics than anything else, and it seems to me that a great deal of confusion comes because people don't seem to understand the function of Occam's razor.

Yes. I also see YEC as a problem in hermeneutics (more than mere exegesis) in that the intent of the writing is not to give us a scientific treatise in 20th century thinking about earth's development but, as Conrad Hyers points out remarkably well in his book The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (John Knox Press, 1984) that what Genesis 1:1 - Gen. 2:4 is establishing is that Yahweh has created it and that it is not procreated by the (generations of the) gods. Each day of creation picks off a cluster of pagan deities. In Hebrew, the words for sun and moon are literally "sun-god" and "moon-god". The text carefully avoids these connotations by using descriptive language for sun and moon. There are a number of other clues of this kind in the text.

 

[Jipsah]

people don't seem to understand the function of Occam's razor.

Arghhh! Most folks seem to believe that Occam's Razor means that whatever they believe is true is the most parsimonious answer to any question. Astonishingly annoying.

 

[Fervent]

Arghhh! Most folks seem to believe that Occam's Razor means that whatever they believe is true is the most parsimonious answer to any question. Astonishingly annoying.

Yeah, though that's not what I was trying to convey there lol What I was saying is that most people seem to think that parsimony is a law of nature or that what makes parsimony an effective heuristic is an intrinsic relationship between simplicity and truth rather than parsimony allowing for explanations to be manageable enough for us to test them.

 

[Diamond72]

I do not always see a clear line of demarcation between ID and TE except at the extremes. Clouding this categorization is the young versus old earth issue, for instance.

The problem is that people do not understand the paradox that yec, oec, te & gap can all be true from their own perspective. For example clearly Adam and Eve and Noah were real people and there was a real Garden of Eden and a Real ark and all of the rest of it. Bishop Ussher had nothing to say about anything before Adam because Science had nothing to say about it at the time 500 years ago.

 

[DennisF]

The problem is that people do not understand the paradox that yec, oec, te & gap can all be true from their own perspective. For example clearly Adam and Eve and Noah were real people and there was a real Garden of Eden and a Real ark and all of the rest of it. Bishop Ussher had nothing to say about anything before Adam because Science had nothing to say about it at the time 500 years ago.

Anything can be "true" from an arbitrary perspective. What I understand you to be saying is that different propositions appear to be true given different fact-bases to work from. Our task is to assess (and acquire) critical facts from which to draw hopefully correct conclusions. That is not easy and few people have honed their mental skills to be good at it though all of us assume we are good at it! The opening sentence by Rene Descartes in "Discourse on Method": "Good Sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess."

I fully agree that, in accordance with the concreteness of Hebrew (in contrast to Greek) thinking, that scripture presents history as real history. How it is to be understood - that is, the sense in which we are to give to it - is a problem largely of translation in a Hebrew context.

 

[Diamond72]

Anything can be "true" from an arbitrary perspective.

There is NOTHING arbitrary about the Bible. There are just many levels of understanding. He Hasidic say up to 100 layers of meaning. Not everyone understands the mystery of how a day can represent a long period of time.

In sunday school we teach the literal Bible. Then when the students are old enough to go into the sanctuary the pastor teaching them the deeper meaning of those scriptures.

1corinthians 13 "11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.…

There are a lot of books and a lot of schools in Heaven. When people get there they are going to find out that they have a lot to learn.