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

rmwilliamsll · Jul 18, 2006

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock

it's a pun.

Luke 6:43-49, Matthew 7:24-27 HOUSE ON ROCK OR SAND
are not the context of Matt 16:17. There is no relationship between the parable and Peter declaration.

vossler · Jul 18, 2006

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

Maybe, but after our other discussions I'm not ready for a time consuming dialog that may not be fruitful, besides I'd rather end this one on a positive note.

stumpjumper · Jul 18, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock

it's a pun.

Jesus is not calling Peter the rock, though, but his faith. Orthodox interpret it that way at least...

Luke 6:43-49, Matthew 7:24-27 HOUSE ON ROCK OR SAND
are not the context of Matt 16:17. There is no relationship between the parable and Peter declaration.

Well then you have a problem of poor construction advice

stumpjumper · Jul 18, 2006

Both Matthew 16:17 and 7:24-27 use Petra (strongs 4073) which means: "c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul."

The firmness and strength of the soul come from faith which is the foundation of the Church...

In relation to Peter, Petros is used in Matthew 16 and that is used only in relation to Peter one of the twelve...

USincognito · Jul 18, 2006

stumpjumper said:
Well then you have a problem of poor construction advice

(just an aside for the literalitsts...)
I mentioned rebar and steel I-beams, but if Jesus was really looking create a textbook - the point of this thread - analogy, why didn't he mention concrete, which was already known to the Roman citizens of the first century?

Is upon my rock I base by church yet another example of symbolic language being used to teach transendant truths?

vossler · Jul 18, 2006

USincognito said:
Wouldn't a text, if meant to be scientifically accurate include all the animals of the world that the Jews would encounter?

I don't believe the intent of Scripture is to be scientifically complete, just accurate in those matters of which it speaks.

USincognito said:
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 like that you're digging for the truth, I myself should spend more time in Scripture digging.

As for your question, well I believe like most things, Scripture was not meant to be exhaustive on genealogies and geographic expansion because it would be difficult to present and wasn't applicable as you point out later in your post.

I believe the primary reason for the genealogies is to provide a historical record all the way back to Adam, and when other genealogies are mentioned it is because of other relevance, not for completeness.

stumpjumper · Jul 18, 2006

USincognito said:
(just an aside for the literalitsts...)
I mentioned rebar and steel I-beams, but if Jesus was really looking create a textbook - the point of this thread - analogy, why didn't he mention concrete, which was already known to the Roman citizens of the first century?

True. But at the time they did build their houses on the desert sand and not on the rocks in the hills... I would have to think that would be a glaring error to readers at the time especially since Matthew was primarily for a Jewish audience...

Is upon my rock I base by church yet another example of symbolic language being used to teach transendant truths?

I think so... Especially when you add the other passage that calls Jesus the cornerstone that was rejected... It's Jesus' ekklesia and the called out ones are done so based upon faith, IMO.

USincognito · Jul 19, 2006

Do no YEC's other than vossler want to comment on this thread or have I an Nooj tainted it for you?

stumpjumper said:
True. But at the time they did build their houses on the desert sand and not on the rocks in the hills... I would have to think that would be a glaring error to readers at the time especially since Matthew was primarily for a Jewish audience...

I would nit pick this point archaeologically since most houses in A.D. 30 weren't built in the desert, but on solid ground. You could make the point about migrant tent dwelling nomads/shepards etc., but from the described professions of the Desciples, I don't think any of them lived in a tent before joining Jesus' ministry.

Regarless we're still left with the example noted by shernren above that no writer in the Bible used explicitly anachronistic language in their myths, prophecies, parables or historical chonicles. The teachings were phenomnalistically and scientifically appropriate for their times and audiences.

shernren · Jul 19, 2006

phenomenalistic or phenomenological? XD

Mercury said:
It does surprise me that the Bible sometimes describes actual events (such as creation or the exodus) in mythical terms, especially when those accounts borrow imagery from other cultures. However, it appears that God is willing to use any means necessary to convey his nature and his works to the Hebrews and the rest of the world.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25405286&postcount=34

But the more I think through it the less I am surprised that the creation of the world is described in mythical terms. It still is today. Scientific creationism is a particular scientific myth describing the creation of the world. But we needn't look that far. When children hear of the Big Bang for the first time they are probably given (or derive) an image of a densely concentrated little dot of "everything" exploding into a huge, empty, black, pre-existent space. (With Star-Wars-esque explosion sfx, too, probably.) It's as much a myth as the myth that when God created the world He built a Plexiglass dome over our heads and pasted a few glittery orbs on it to mark the time.

Even our modern, quantum-mechanics-and-GR cultures still tell children myths about how the world got started. Why should we be surprised that God did so to a people who didn't even know how to smelt metal?

Imagine a conversation like this ...

Moses: God?
God: Yes, Moses.
Moses: Where do the stars go at night?
God: Why do you ask?
Moses: Well, I remember this story I once heard about how the sky was a giant pig and the stars were piglets and how the giant sky-pig would eat up all the stars before dawn every day.
God: Have you been reading those Egyptian books again, Moses?
Moses: ... they have pretty pictures!
God: Look, even the Cro-Magnons knew how to draw better than them, in My opinion.
Moses: Crow magnets?
God: Never mind.
Moses: So, what happens to those stars? Do You eat them every night?
God: No, I -
Moses: What do they taste like? Pigs?
God: Well, no, I don't eat stars. I did use them to make everything, though.
Moses: Even pigs?
God: Yes, pigs.
Moses: So is that why Pharaoh told me that Nut is a giant pig in the sky? Because pigs are made from -
God: Look, there's a reason I declared pigs unclean. Now stop talking about that blasted sky-pig.
Moses: Because they taste like stars?
God: That's not it.
Moses: Then why?
God: (sighs) Look, I suppose it's about time you learned how the earth was created.
Moses: Ooh! Are you going to write that on stone, too?
God: No, if I did, the entire earth would be a slab of written-on stone by the time I finished. So I'll just tell you instead. Listen carefully.
Moses: Listening.
God: A few billion years after the Big Bang, the stars came into existence. Stars are really just big flaming balls of gas that derive energy from atomic fusion. So don't worship them. Anyway, once those stars got old enough, their reactions became unstable and they went supernova. They spewed out heavy elements all over the universe. Some of them coalesced in a new star which you now know as the Sun. Don't worship that, either, it's really another big flaming ball of gas. But this one had a large disk of gas around it, enriched with metals and carbon and all that good life-giving stuff. After another few million years, gravitational interactions caused the clouds of dust to gather into nine planets plus lots of planetoids. Earth itself got formed pretty quickly, but then a large impactor collided with it and spewed out a whole lot of material, which became your moon. Don't -
Moses: - worship that, either?
God: Yes. And after three billion years -
Moses: God, I don't get it. Am I stupid?
God: Okay. All I'm really trying to say is, don't worship the Sun, or the Moon, or the stars, they're just as created as you all are.
Moses: But I think those Israelites have had enough of "Thou shalt not"s, God, especially after the deal with the stone tablets. Maybe You should write it into a story instead? You know, like the story of the giant sky-pig? I'll never forget that one.
God: Yes, Moses, I probably should.

Nooj · Jul 23, 2006

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.

I was taking a cursory look at some Christian websites for some more information on the Genesis geneologies (suffice to say, I'm not very familiar with the Bible) and I found this:

1 Chronicles 16

14 He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.

15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;

17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

Taken literally, a thousand generations is a lot more than the generations described from Genesis 5 to Genesis 11. Maybe the authors of the Bible skipped some generations to make it shorter?

Assyrian · Jul 23, 2006

In the Talmud Jewish Rabbis reckoned 974 of these generations were before Adam.

gluadys · Jul 23, 2006

shernren said:
But the more I think through it the less I am surprised that the creation of the world is described in mythical terms.

It doesn't surprise me either.

One point that creationists like to drive home is how science is always changing. So why would God use a science-based way to reveal important and timeless theological truths?

If he revealed himself as Creator and the things of the world as created things, not lesser gods, using scientific terminology, the scriptures would have to be re-written every few centuries to keep them updated to the latest scientific discoveries. That would be true even if he used the science of our time, because today's science is not final either. It will change.

So a science-based revelation will always be either so far ahead of its time as not to be understandable, or will quickly become outdated and sound foolish.

Stories, on the other hand, have a staying power through time that science can never have. So if you want to teach something really important, and be sure that teaching is as accessible several thousand years in the future as the day it was first revealed, the most sensible way to do it is to embed it in a story that people love to tell and retell generation after generation.

It is one of the surest ways to preserve a teaching through long periods of time.

Pats · Jul 26, 2006

I have nothing of particular value, really, to add to this thread. But after finally having gotten around to reading it, I just wanted to really compliment all of the contributors. This is one of the top ten origins threads I've read in a really long time.

Smidlee · Jul 26, 2006

stumpjumper said:
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

Of course it may be the other way around. Science is way overrated IMHO. You as well as most assume you can answer by science "How?" without answering "Who?" when it comes to origins. But what if the answer to both are very much related. Thus it's be those who put a lot of faith in science that have been thrown for a loop. If both "who?" and "how?" is related then evolution would send it's follower in the wrong direction.

Thus evolutionist see similirities in nature as proof of common descent but I can see these same similariites pointed clearly in a different direction. (I'm not referring to common design even though it closer than descent.) If the scriptures are true then similirities between animals are a must.

Jesus did speak in parables but I can easily see ever one of these parables are actually true.

gluadys · Jul 26, 2006

Smidlee said:
Jesus did speak in parables but I can easily see ever one of these parables are actually true.

Well, of course they are true. That is the point of a parable: to teach truth via a fictional story.

Smidlee · Jul 26, 2006

gluadys said:
Well, of course they are true. That is the point of a parable: to teach truth via a fictional story.

Why do you think they were fictional stories? How easy would it have been for the Son of God pick real story out of a crowd of people?

Assyrian · Jul 26, 2006

How are you on seven headed monsters? Was there a rather odd petting zoo on Patmos?

gluadys · Jul 26, 2006

Smidlee said:
Why do you think they were fictional stories? How easy would it have been for the Son of God pick real story out of a crowd of people?

I expect because the evangelists say they are parables and that Jesus regularly taught using parables.

Pats · Jul 26, 2006

The point is that as long as you understand why Jesus told a parable and learn the lesson of the story, it does not matter if it was some one's literal circumstances or not.

I mean, what bearing does that have in a parable's pressance in scripture?

None that I can see. It doesn't change the reason why Christ told it one bit.

USincognito · Jul 30, 2006

There's a reason we still read Aesop's Fables and Mother Goose stories to children and it's not just so they'll appreciate going to the petting zoo or riding kiddy rides at the county fair.

Look at a simple rhyme like Jack Sprat.

Jack Sprat could eat no fat
His wife could eat no lean
So betwixt them both
They licked the platter clean

Lesson? Find a partner who compliments your weaknesses and you can maximize your efficiency/economy. That's Business Admin 101 in a nutshell.

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

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Left the river, made it to the sea

Left the river, made it to the sea

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Veteran

Left the river, made it to the sea

a post by Alan Smithee

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Legend

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Legend

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency