Creation Facts In Scripture

[Critias]

I think you've misunderstood here. Compare these two statements. He's not claiming that the Bible is speaking in terms of modern science but in terms of ancient (Babylonian) science; which has long since been falsified. I'm not sure I'd call what the Babylonians thought "science" as such; but I see where he's coming from: that from their observations and mythology, the world was made that way (it would have been as "obvious" to them to say that there was a solid firmament above the earth as it "obvious" to us that this isn't the case: remember, they didn't have telescopes, or even glass instruments of any kind to confirm it. They were basing it entirely on conjecture from the naked eye.)

Look at what he says about Joshua. Richard is stating that Joshua holding up his arm and stopping the sun by God's power is science. I believe Richard is trying to bring in geocentrism into this.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think you've misunderstood here. Compare these two statements. He's not claiming that the Bible is speaking in terms of modern science but in terms of ancient (Babylonian) science; which has long since been falsified. I'm not sure I'd call what the Babylonians thought "science" as such; but I see where he's coming from: that from their observations and mythology, the world was made that way (it would have been as "obvious" to them to say that there was a solid firmament above the earth as it "obvious" to us that this isn't the case: remember, they didn't have telescopes, or even glass instruments of any kind to confirm it. They were basing it entirely on conjecture from the naked eye.)

thank you artybloke. i was going to reply immediately to what i thought was an obvious misunderstanding, but refrained to see if anyone else agreed. but as this discussion seems fraught with serious misunderstandings and i hoped it was not on my part.

i don't see any reason to quibble, at this point over the word science, but rather understand that all cultures have a body of observations that they use to model their physical world. Ancient Babylonian cosmology is well understand and well documented on the net enough that anyone who has an interest can easily see their cosmological models. Furthermore it is equally obvious that these models are what the writer of Gen 1 is using to form the framework of his cosmology. Flat earth, solid firmament dome, with stars, sun and moon in it, with heaven above the dome and hell beneath our feet. This model is not being challenged as an accurate rendering of the universe it is being used to fashion the polemical message of Gen 1: the LORD God is the one true God, all other gods do what he tells them to do and are subservient, that God provides for humanity and that the Sabbath is important.

that is precisely what i mean by using ancient science not teaching it as binding. it is also why this is reflective of the conservative historical-grammatical hermeneutic to see what the verses mean to their first readers not to us. we must use their cosmology to do our exegesis not ours. ours only comes into play during the process of application and cross/trans cultural application.

The big problem with the CED dabate is that we never talk about the origin of Providence in Gen1 or the origin of the Sabbath as a creation mandate because we are so concentrated on answering modern scientific questions posed to Gen 1 like how long ago was creation? The answer is that the ancient Hebrews simply didn't care how long ago, their science was structured to ask and answer a completely different kind of questions then is ours. Theirs is mostly personification and personal where hows is almost completely de personalized and de sacralized.
o'well, i've tried the best i could, but past experience says that i can't even make the case the the sabbath is a creation ordinance persuasively.

 

[artybloke]

Look at what he says about Joshua. Richard is stating that Joshua holding up his arm and stopping the sun by God's power is science.

To quote Richard again:

all cultures have a body of observations that they use to model their physical world.

Which would constitute their "science" as such; but it is far from being the same as modern science; I'm probably more wary of calling it science, maybe I would call it more like their "world-understanding." It's not something anyone would have even argued about, any more than all but the most obdurate know that the earth spins round the sun. In that world, it was obvious by observation that the sun went round the earth. Now, by the use of better observation (telescopes), we know it is not the case.

 

[Critias]

It seems that because the Bible says this about Joshua, TEs say this is teaching geocentrism. Geocentrism is modern science compared to the time of Joshua. That is what I am trying to convey.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Look at what he says about Joshua. Richard is stating that Joshua holding up his arm and stopping the sun by God's power is science. I believe Richard is trying to bring in geocentrism into this.

the entire OT is written from a geocentric POV, the phrase "language of appearances" is just an attempt to minimize this major difference between modern science and this ancient model of the cosmos. I think the OT is also flat earth but i find it more difficult to make that case convincingly, there is no evidence at all that any of the OT writers were aware that the solar system is helio centric. the fact that there still exist sincere and vocal geocentrics certainly makes the argument much more interesting.

There are other differences between the science used in the Scriptures vs modern science we could use as well. demons cause illness, blood contains the intergenerational transmission elements, storms and lightening in particular are directly caused by God, etc.
but the geocentric one is such a good example that i always seem to return there.

 

[Critias]

Did you read what I said above your last post, Richard?

 

[artybloke]

TEs say this is teaching geocentrism

TEs no more believe that the Bible teaches geocentrism than we think that the Bible teaches Young Earth Creationism. A geocentric universe was not something anyone in the ancient world in which the Genesis account was written that would even have questioned, except possibly by obscure Greek philosophers who would have no influence in that part of the world. It was no more taught than people are taught how to breathe. It was obvious: you just had to watch the sun move from east to west.

The Bible does not teach the science of creation, any more than it has anything to say about the science of optics despite Paul having said "through a glass darkly". What the Bible teaches is the theology of creation: what the creation means, not how it came about (except in terms of it being an act - or acts - of God - something which cannot be scientifically observed but has to be grasped by faith.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

TEs no more believe that the Bible teaches geocentrism than we think that the Bible teaches Young Earth Creationism. A geocentric universe was not something anyone in the ancient world in which the Genesis account was written that would even have questioned, except possibly by obscure Greek philosophers who would have no influence in that part of the world. It was no more taught than people are taught how to breathe. It was obvious: you just had to watch the sun move from east to west.

The Bible does not teach the science of creation, any more than it has anything to say about the science of optics despite Paul having said "through a glass darkly". What the Bible teaches is the theology of creation: what the creation means, not how it came about (except in terms of it being an act - or acts - of God - something which cannot be scientifically observed but has to be grasped by faith.)

This distinction between TEACHING and USING is an important one. Teaching involves the idea that these ideas are binding on all the readers of Scripture, that it is transcultural, that it is essential. When a modern missionary carries the Gospel to somewhere else, it is his task to transmit just the Gospel, not Americanism, not Western civilization. But this is not just a difficult task but almost impossible. It is also the issue in the difference between exegesis and application(or preaching).
It is a difficult task to separate these things, but it has to be done.

The problem is that it looks a lot like the distinction between the kernel and husk of Scripture motif. I've just finished nearly a month of reading on the rise of liberalism in the Presbyterian church, starting with reading lots of Charles Briggs. I am hypersensitive to the problems of defining some of Scripture as human and not inspired and some as Godly and inspired and authoritative(CAB's husk/kernel distinction). This is not what i what to do, all Scripture is inspired and is authoritative but not all Scripture is directly transferable at the level it is at.

For instance, at the level of science, the OT is geocentric, this has to understood not as talking directly to my modern science and telling me to be geocentric but to be understood as wrapping the message of Scripture in an envelope and only the message within talks directly to my world view.....

Likewise God does not require that i believe that the blood contains the essential elements of ethnos but i can believe that the genes do. etc

...

 

[artybloke]

Richard - I'm probably far to the liberal of you in terms of theology but I can't really better that analysis.