- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I thought this would make an interesting thread, so started a new one.
But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).
Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.
History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.
But Percivale, notice what you're doing here. You're actually picking and choosing which science you'll believe and which history you'll believe. For virtually all biblical narratives contain supernatural acts to one degree or another, which are anti-scientific by definition. But in those cases you set science aside, and trust the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christian and believe its miraculous stories). But with Genesis you suddenly throw out corroborating histories, like the rest of the Bible, like Josephus and Jubilees which are not inspired documents but do have historical value, and trade them for anti-supernatueralistic scientific theories.
My challenge to you is, why do this? Why not be consistent? Either use scientific anti-supernatural reasoning as context for the entire Bible or use it for non of it. But don't just pick and choose what applies where.
The scientific findings regarding the age of the earth I consider part of the context of Genesis 1, just like the history of Assyria and Babylon are part of the context of II Kings. In both cases, when you study both together and harmonize all the facts, you get a coherent picture....
But science and history are vastly different forms of investigation. One is based on discovered written information (history), the other on assumptions of anti-supernaturalsm, and the uniformity of physical processes (science).
Science is the practice of simply looking at how the world works today and assuming a priori that 1) the processes we see have been the unbreakable pattern from the beginning, and that 2) these processes brought everything into existence, including the processes themselves.
History on the other hand is the discernment of truth of discovered written information that may or may not be accurate, and gains reliability when corroborated with other discovered written documents.
But Percivale, notice what you're doing here. You're actually picking and choosing which science you'll believe and which history you'll believe. For virtually all biblical narratives contain supernatural acts to one degree or another, which are anti-scientific by definition. But in those cases you set science aside, and trust the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christian and believe its miraculous stories). But with Genesis you suddenly throw out corroborating histories, like the rest of the Bible, like Josephus and Jubilees which are not inspired documents but do have historical value, and trade them for anti-supernatueralistic scientific theories.
My challenge to you is, why do this? Why not be consistent? Either use scientific anti-supernatural reasoning as context for the entire Bible or use it for non of it. But don't just pick and choose what applies where.