[OPEN]Why should the Bible be about science or history?

[stumpjumper]

We had an interesting discussion in Church today about what is in the Bible and what is not and what the Bible is supposed to tell us and what it is not meant to relay...

The scripture referenced was Deuteronomy 6 and it's relevant but I like to be concise

Anyways... The discussion was led by Pastor and it was about what the Bible is meant to relay and what it is not... We all agreed that the Bible is a book of faith to tell us about God and our relationship with God and not meant, written, or inspired to tell us about science, history, or even an exhaustive listing of moral rules!

It is a book about our spiritual self or our soul and although it may tell us things about history, about what other cultures believed about the natural world, and the cultural prohibitions of cultures long past.... That is not why we have the Bible...

We have the Bible because previous Christians had faith back to the disciples and apostles who wrote scripture and beyond them to the Israelites and they all wrote scripture because of the faith that was within and that faith was a relationship with the living God...

So, why should I believe that Genesis 1 or 2 or 11 or 21 is literal, scientific history? Why is it not better viewed as one or more than one person's view of his relationship with God written under spiritual inspiration from God?

 

[Margim]

Why indeed...? This is the very reason I don't get involved in debates about evolution v creationism. I don't think God cares.

 

[stumpjumper]

Why indeed...

As a book of faith and God's relationship with people, the Bible is priceless. For science and history, well, not so accurate. Don't think it was written to be though...

 

[Nooj]

Creationists think that if one part of the Bible is not totally factual, then other parts of the Bible may be in doubt.

I would say: The Bible doesn't need to be factual. It's not a history book.

 

[theFijian]

I would respectfully disagree with most of what has already been said!

The Bible is not (just) a book of morals, it is a book telling us about redemptive history. From Creation -> Fall -> Redemption -> Consumation. Christianity is a historical religion and it's truth claims are rooted in history.

I would generally agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy, Article XIV is an important caveat however

 

[stumpjumper]

I would respectfully disagree with most of what has already been said!

I love respectful disagreement

The Bible is not (just) a book of morals, it is a book telling us about redemptive history. From Creation -> Fall -> Redemption -> Consumation. Christianity is a historical religion and it's truth claims are rooted in history.

Well... I don't think it is a book of morals but a book of faith. An unfolding story of God's relationship with humanity within history... However, much of that history is sacred history and concerned more with faith (man's relationship with God) than actual, literal events...

I would generally agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy, Article XIV is an important caveat however

Hmm. Interesting... What is your position on some of the geneologies then? I have a thread in the TE section...

 

[vossler]

I would respectfully disagree with most of what has already been said!

The Bible is not (just) a book of morals, it is a book telling us about redemptive history. From Creation -> Fall -> Redemption -> Consumation. Christianity is a historical religion and it's truth claims are rooted in history.

I would generally agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy, Article XIV is an important caveat however

Wow, twice in a week that I agree with you! I have to admit this couldn't have come at a better time because I was truly losing hope. It was beginning to seem that there was so little common ground between TEs and YECs that any attempt at communication was seemingly always being stifled because our worldviews were so diverse. Thank heavens this isn't 100% true.

On this one I couldn't agree more.

I've always liked the Chicago Statement and felt it described my views on Innerancy to a T.

Thanks...who would have thunk it. Praise the Lord!

 

[USincognito]

Oooo! Open OT thread! I must post here and add tangentally - Vossler, you and me must do lunch some time in WF dude. We can just avoid this particular topic...

I'm going to take a different tack from what has been posted so far an post comments about some musings I had last night at work - yes, my job is tedious, so while performing my duties after reading Crevo/OT posts I tend to think about something other than women.

Can any of you who posit that since Jesus referred to, Genesis or even, say, the Jonah narrative, why, since he was addressing people who would have had no concept of things like changes in allele frequency over time or plants being taken on the Ark since the writers mistakenly assumed that plants don't respire, what benefit would have been gained in explaining his redemptive plan and ministry when all it would have done is likely confused the audience... much like evidences of an older than 6,000 year old world do to a 21st Century audience today?

Isn't it enough that the Creator of the world spoke the language of his audience to get the really important message of the Gospel across when he referenced Adam, Noah, Jonah, etc. without the ultimate biologist/geologist turning each sermon into a lecture? How many people today could honestly say they'd sit through an incarnation of Christ himself in the present lengthily discussing Plate Tectonics or Biogeography? Wouldn't you rather hear about the important message rather than a lecture?

I'm sorry if it's a bit tangental to introduce to this thread, but I went on a bit of a tear in another thread in Crevo that offered that Atheist Gambit about "consistency" and whether non-believers find the TE position or the YEC position more consistent.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25318439&postcount=96

Oh, and one bonus to YECs, the one argument you guys present about your interpretation of Genesis that drives me the craziest is the "yom" one. Anyone who knows anything about the Tanakh realizes that it came from an oral tradition long before it was ever committed to writing so it's not surprising that it would incorporate poetic language in order to be more easily memorized.

 

[shernren]

The Bible is not (just) a book of morals, it is a book telling us about redemptive history. From Creation -> Fall -> Redemption -> Consumation. Christianity is a historical religion and it's truth claims are rooted in history.

Having said that, just because the Bible is a book about history, does not make it a historical book. History can be communicated in various forms which do not seem historical, such as allegory, fiction, parable, poetry, and apocalyptic. What is important to recognize is that redemptive history is a method for God to reveal Himself to us, culminating in the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As such, any account of redemptive history is sufficient if it adequately expresses the redemptive intent of God's actions, i.e. when it tells us about God through what He does.

The Bible does not need to tell us exactly what God did, to tell us why He did it.

 

[USincognito]

To kinda go along with, but diverge from Shernren's comments, I harken back to an apologetical argument I don't want to make the centerpiece of my thoughts in this thread, but something I still think germane. In the 1890s Heinrich Schliemann used a Greek copy of the Iliad to find the supposedly legendary ruins of Troy.

Does that mean that Zues and Aprodite were intimately involved in the Trojan War? Or that Achilles was actually dipped in the river Styx giving him invulnerability save his heel?

Obviously not, but neither does the story of Joshua's Long Day invalidate that God interviened in the battle nor that, as I mentioned above, that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a sea beast.

Whether God's intervention was legendary, whether Jonah is an allegory and whether Genesis isn't literally historical or scientific doesn't diminish God's soverignty or power over his Creation though. God is still God. Jesus is still the Messiah. And the Holy Spirit still moves people to become Christians.

 

[stumpjumper]

Can any of you who posit that since Jesus referred to, Genesis or even, say, the Jonah narrative, why, since he was addressing people who would have had no concept of things like changes in allele frequency over time or plants being taken on the Ark since the writers mistakenly assumed that plants don't respire, what benefit would have been gained in explaining his redemptive plan and ministry when all it would have done is likely confused the audience... much like evidences of an older than 6,000 year old world do to a 21st Century audience today?

I think that's a good point.

It is generally agreed that Jesus taught in parables because he was teaching orally and because the very nature of theological discussion is something that is overly symbolic in nature. Just like science talks in the language of mathematics, theology talks in the language of poetry.

I don't see the benefit of explaining the workings of the natural world when the topic was generally one of faith and spirituality. Morality as well but even the morals where spiritually centered for the most part...

Most likely the apostles would have gotten stumped on stars exploding or photosynthesis...

Evolution would have thrown them for a loop

 

[shernren]

Evolution would have thrown them for a loop

The following conversation is an artistic reconstruction and in no way represents the actual words of Jesus. It only represents the opinion of the fallen author shernren and not those of Jesus or Peter ... though I think those were pretty close.

Jesus: "Guys, God hates divorce! Don't you know that ever since man evolved from the australopithecines God's plan was always for them to be male and female in a permanent monogamous relationship?"
Peter: "What's an astro-pithy-scene?"
Jesus: "It's something like a chimpanzee."
Peter: "What's a chipping-sea?"
Jesus: "It's a strange form o' monkey."
Peter: "You mean God made us folks from monkeys?"
Jesus: "Yep."
Peter: "..."
Jesus: "..."
Peter: "... but man, that's impossible! I mean, like, wouldn't we see cats growing into dogs and frogs turning into lizards if that was true? That doesn't work!"
Jesus: "Trust me, it did."
Peter: "Ohhhh, this must be another of them pair-o'-bowls, right? The ones with the impossible events, like Samaritans saving Jews and prodigal sons not getting butchered by their father?"
Jesus: "No, Peter - "
Peter: "C'mon, Rabbi, you know we're horrible at those. What does it mean, man? What's the figure-a-thief interpretation?"
Jesus: "That's what really happened, Peter! God really did make man from monkeys!"
Peter: "..."
Jesus: "..."
Peter: "I still don't get it, Rabbi. Am I stupid?"
Jesus: (sighs) "Alright. How about this: 'From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.' How do you think that sounds?"
Peter: "Oh! Now I get it!"
Jesus: (aside) "Just wait 'till he has to read Paul."

 

[stumpjumper]

LOL Shernren

 

[theFijian]

Wow, twice in a week that I agree with you! I have to admit this couldn't have come at a better time because I was truly losing hope. It was beginning to seem that there was so little common ground between TEs and YECs that any attempt at communication was seemingly always being stifled because our worldviews were so diverse. Thank heavens this isn't 100% true.

On this one I couldn't agree more.

I've always liked the Chicago Statement and felt it described my views on Innerancy to a T.

Thanks...who would have thunk it. Praise the Lord!

Thanks, but shouldn't you now be asking me how after all that I can still accept evolution?

 

[USincognito]

I've been thinking about two more cases of audience approrateness and those are the list of Kosher and non-Kosher animals in Ex./Lev. and the listing of geneologies both play back into whether the Bible should be seen as a science text or history text book.

In terms of the animals, not a single marsupial is listed, because all had gone extinct in Eurasia and Africa by the time of the lists were written. Wouldn't a text, if meant to be scientifically accurate include all the animals of the world that the Jews would encounter?

It would, but since it's a list of dietary prescriptions and God knows everything, he knew that Jesus would fulfill the Law before any Jew made it to a land where they would face the conundrum of eating or not eating an oppossum or kangaroo, marsupials, etc. aren't mentioned. Similarly, from a Jewish viewpoint, I'm sure they think God knew some smart Rabbi could make that determination by the characteristics listed in the Tanakh.

As far as the genologies go, I spent some time digging around Genesis 10 on blueletterbible.org to refresh my memories on what cultures the descendants of each of Noah's represented. All of them are from the Middle East, North East Africa, Central Asia and Southern Europe. If it was meant to be an accurate historical (or more accurate geographical) text, then why weren't the geneologies of Siberians, Chinese, Malays, New Guineans, Australians, Indians, West and Sub-Saharan Africans, Northern Europeans, and the Native populations in North, South and Meso America listed as well?

I see two reasons, the first being that those people would have been completely unknown to Hewbrews living in Babylon c.1000 B.C. All it would have done was confused them if God had sent a vision of these cultures and civilzations while Gen 10 was being written.

The other I think is more important though. A three hundred verse chapter 10 listing all the geneologies of all the peoples of the world would have convoluted the three messages - a list of the Gentiles, noting Nimrod/Babel and Canaan, and establishing the Hebrews covenant with God down through, obviously, Eber and his descendants. These messages are the clear purpose of Genesis 10, not to provide a comprehensive geographic listing of all the people of the Earth.

 

[shernren]

I've been thinking about two more cases of audience approrateness and those are the list of Kosher and non-Kosher animals in Ex./Lev. and the listing of geneologies both play back into whether the Bible should be seen as a science text or history text book.

My personal list of "things in nature not created in Genesis 1" so far includes microorganisms, seaweed, black holes, quasars, and extrasolar planets. All of these are things the ancient Hebrews would never have known about and never experienced in daily life (besides maybe seaweed). A strong clue to the phenomenologicality of Genesis 1.

 

[Assyrian]

They certainly would have seen fungi, the bigger mushrooms anyway. Moulds and yeast feature in the Levitical laws, but aren't mentioned in Gen1.

 

[USincognito]

I was going to mention, as I was trying to make a point about Jesus and the use of parables that whenever houses are mentioned, it's always stone and sand, but never rebar, concrete and steel I-beams. It seemed to inject too much of the anachronistic dilemma that I was trying to avoid though so I didn't.

With Assyrians mushroom ceveat, I think shernren's got a good list of extant things in 1000 B.C. the Tanakh scribes were basically unaware of (and I'm sure they had no idea that cholera and dysentery - doubless endemic back then - were caused by microbes).

I've been thinking for the last 10 minutes trying to come up with another example and the best I could do is the electromagnetic spectrum, but the Rainbow allegory would lead me to give them enough credit that they had a concept light was composed of colors.

 

[Assyrian]

I think here are two list, the things they did not now about at the time like bacteria, black holes, magnetic fields and quasars, and the thinks they did know about but don't list in the creation account, perhaps because it was representative rather than exhaustive: seaweed and mushrooms.

I remember reading about a bible translator having problems with the house built on a rock parable. The locals knew if you built you house on rock it would get washed away in a flood. No you build on sand and drive the stilts in deep if you want to withstand floods.

 

[stumpjumper]

I remember reading about a bible translator having problems with the house built on a rock parable. The locals knew if you built you house on rock it would get washed away in a flood. No you build on sand and drive the stilts in deep if you want to withstand floods.

Ooh..
That one I know... Jesus was talking about building your life around your faith... Later on in Matthew:
[bible]Matthew 16:17-18[/bible]
Jesus claims that Peter's faith that he is the Son of God is the foundation of the Church...