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

[mark kennedy]

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?

Because the whole point of the Bible is redemptive history, the Flood, birth of Isaac, exodus, conquest of Canaan, the presense of God in the holy of holies, birth death and ressurection of Christ are all miracles essential to our salvation. When the Bible is abandoned as history it lacks any rational basis for faith except as some warm fuzzy feeling that could be just as easily had from recreational drugs or flights of fantasy.

 

[stumpjumper]

Because the whole point of the Bible is redemptive history, the Flood, birth of Isaac, exodus, conquest of Canaan, the presense of God in the holy of holies, birth death and ressurection of Christ are all miracles essential to our salvation. When the Bible is abandoned as history it lacks any rational basis for faith except as some warm fuzzy feeling that could be just as easily had from recreational drugs or flights of fantasy.

Nobody is discounting redemptive teachings if they read certain narratives, say Genesis 1-11, primarily in an allegorical fashion...

Since this is OT, what we are primarily referencing when we say we read allegory are the creation and origin accounts not the Gospels so the death and resurrection is really just a red-herring...

Also, even TE's believe in original or social sin and redemption... We just read the accounts differently...

 

[jereth]

Is the Bible about science? Absolutely not -- there is not a shred of scientific teaching in the Bible.

Is the Bible about history? It contains an interpretation of history, but not a record of history. The Bible explains the theological significance and meaning of select historical events, but events are never recorded simply for the sake of record.

Let's face it -- if the Bible was meant to be a historical record, it does an absolutely rubbish job of it! (by modern standards at least)

 

[Pats]

Because the whole point of the Bible is redemptive history, the Flood, birth of Isaac, exodus, conquest of Canaan, the presense of God in the holy of holies, birth death and ressurection of Christ are all miracles essential to our salvation. When the Bible is abandoned as history it lacks any rational basis for faith except as some warm fuzzy feeling that could be just as easily had from recreational drugs or flights of fantasy.

That latter portion of your statement is quite a leap.

 

[Raphael777]

Because the whole point of the Bible is redemptive history, the Flood, birth of Isaac, exodus, conquest of Canaan, the presense of God in the holy of holies, birth death and ressurection of Christ are all miracles essential to our salvation. When the Bible is abandoned as history it lacks any rational basis for faith except as some warm fuzzy feeling that could be just as easily had from recreational drugs or flights of fantasy.

But you must surely recognise different literary approaches that do not demand a literal interpretation? When Jesus describes himself as a door (or gate), no one can interpret that in a strictly literal sense - but we do not conclude that the whole validity of the Bible is at risk. Literal truth is only one type of truth.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. ("All scripture is given by insperation of God and is profitable...&quot and as God cannot lie, God's word is true. That being so, anything the Bible might happen to say about things that fall into the realm of science is also true.

 

[USincognito]

This response constituted debate on further reflection. I'll edit in some other comments I was thinking about later.

 

[JohnR7]

So, why should I believe that Genesis 1 or 2 or 11 or 21 is literal, scientific history?

Becaues it brings greater Glory to God that He is able to use real people and teach us from their real life experances.

I can not imagine people thinking that the Bible is not "literal" unless someone has never read it and does not know what is in the Bible.

 

[Pats]

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. ("All scripture is given by insperation of God and is profitable...&quot and as God cannot lie, God's word is true. That being so, anything the Bible might happen to say about things that fall into the realm of science is also true.

I find it interesting that you, Mark Kennedy, and JohnR7 come into this thread restating these same things you usually say without answering to any of the specific issues we have raised regarding the literal interpretations of the scriptures.

Here's just one small example of a statement I made that went completely unaddressed by the creationists who have responded to this thread:

I have seen a lot of referances to Exodus refering to a literal 6 day creation, as it does in the listing of the 10 commandments. However, there are passages in the NT that reveal in very plain language that other laws of Moses were figurative examples and not intended literally.

I Corinthians 9:9-12
9)For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

10)Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

11)If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?

12)If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

Genesis 9:2 states that the animals are all delivered into our human hands. No one would take that literally.

This is not even to address all of the unanswered issues others have raised in this thread. If Genesis is such an accurate account of creation why are so many things left out of it? Why is other knowledge not known by ancient man unrevealed, such as the creation of planets? Why is Noah not instructed to take plants with him on the ark?

Why are you folks not address any of the specific issues raised in this thread?

 

[theFijian]

Becaues it brings greater Glory to God that He is able to use real people and teach us from their real life experances.

So why did Jesus teach in parables? Are you saying Jesus wasn't giving as much glory to God as he could have? What your post belies is a kind of Christian moralism, that these things just happened to teach us lessons or morals. No one is saved by being a moral person.

 

[stumpjumper]

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. "All scripture is given by insperation of God and is profitable..." and as God cannot lie, God's word is true. That being so, anything the Bible might happen to say about things that fall into the realm of science is also true.

Well, theistic evolution does not neccesarily take away from the infallibility of the Bible, though. The Bible also only makes a claim at being inspired not literally inerrant but that's a different debate.

What if where we thought scripture was giving scientific truths it was actually giving theological truths in a narrative format? It does not call the Bible into error, then, just a scientific reading of the Bible that was not intended from the outset...

 

[laptoppop]

What if where we thought scripture was giving scientific truths it was actually giving theological truths in a narrative format?

Two sets of truths? Which, then are preeminent? In our modern context, we have become quite accustomed to assigning value to various unequal systems of belief - multiple truths. I would rather say that there is one overreaching reality - one set of truths - that applies to everyone. The discovery of those truths is left as an excercise for the student.

 

[Mallon]

Two sets of truths? Which, then are preeminent? In our modern context, we have become quite accustomed to assigning value to various unequal systems of belief - multiple truths. I would rather say that there is one overreaching reality - one set of truths - that applies to everyone.

I agree that ultimately there is only "one truth." But as Jesus' parables demonstrate, a story can speak theological truth irregardless of whether it literally happened or not. I think this may be what stumpjumper was getting at.

 

[chaoschristian]

Because the whole point of the Bible is redemptive history, the Flood, birth of Isaac, exodus, conquest of Canaan, the presense of God in the holy of holies, birth death and ressurection of Christ are all miracles essential to our salvation. When the Bible is abandoned as history it lacks any rational basis for faith except as some warm fuzzy feeling that could be just as easily had from recreational drugs or flights of fantasy.

Emphasis mine.

We are taught that there is no rational basis for faith by scripture itself, are we not?

There is one and only one basis for faith, and that exists outside of humanity and scripture. So whether or not scripture is indicative literal history and or science has no impact on faith - at all.

 

[stumpjumper]

Two sets of truths? Which, then are preeminent? In our modern context, we have become quite accustomed to assigning value to various unequal systems of belief - multiple truths. I would rather say that there is one overreaching reality - one set of truths - that applies to everyone. The discovery of those truths is left as an excercise for the student.

I agree. I look at it the way Mallon summarized. If the goal of Genesis was to give a literal explanation of our origins (historical and scientific) then two things would have certainly happened. The passage would have been entirely too complex for a pre-scientific people to understand or it would have been entirely too simple and become outdated as civilization progressed.

I read a book recently about buying toys for your kids. One of the worst things about toys today is that they can generally only do one thing which the child, then, quickly gets bored with... A Rescue Heroes Battle Car can really only be a Rescue Heroes Battle Car... But, if you purchase blocks, erector sets, or toys that can do multiple things and you encourage imagination in your child the toys go much farther...

Use that analogy in reverse to theological truths and that is generally how I view Genesis.

I also think there is a limit as to how much we can consider allegorical but that's for another post...

 

[chaoschristian]

The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. ("All scripture is given by insperation of God and is profitable...&quot and as God cannot lie, God's word is true. That being so, anything the Bible might happen to say about things that fall into the realm of science is also true.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Now that we have all the appropriate and applicable text spelled out (in KJV no less) what part of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports this statement:

anything the Bible might happen to say about things that fall into the realm of science is also true.

 

[chaoschristian]

I read a book recently about buying toys for your kids. One of the worst things about toys today is that they can generally only do one thing which the child, then, quickly gets bored with... A Rescue Heroes Battle Car can really only be a Rescue Heroes Battle Car... But, if you purchase blocks, erector sets, or toys that can do multiple things and you encourage imagination in your child the toys go much farther...

New York Best Sellers List #1: The LEGO of Scripture

 

[Pats]

Now that we have all the appropriate and applicable text spelled out (in KJBV no less) what part of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports this statement:

I wasted my rep on you earlier

 

[Pats]

Two sets of truths? Which, then are preeminent? In our modern context, we have become quite accustomed to assigning value to various unequal systems of belief - multiple truths. I would rather say that there is one overreaching reality - one set of truths - that applies to everyone. The discovery of those truths is left as an excercise for the student.

StumpJumper has already answered you as to what he meant, but I wanted to continue the discussion along these lines.

I hope you forgive my usage of this example but it has been on the tip of my tounge for weeks.

First of all, I think most Christians agree that the main truth of the scripture is the grace and redemption found in Christ. A picture of his coming sacrifice is obviously portrayed in the story of Adam and Eve. I find that truth to be the most central to the story.

If the rest of the story in the Garden of Eden did not literally occur by the time line described in scripture, why do other important figures in scripture refer back to them, i.e. Moses, Paul, and Jesus Christ?

First of all, there's no reason Adam and Eve can't have been real people for evolution to have taken place. Knowing how people tend to exagerate oral traditions, however, it is fair to suggest perhaps some scriptural stories such as Adam and Eve may have achieved a less than literal, legandary status, if you will.

Take this definition of the word "myth" for example:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

Now, take the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Darmok, in mind. (LPT, honestly, I've had this analogy running through my head for weeks.) For those who are unaware indulge in reading this brief synapsis:

Stardate 45047.2: The Enterprise and a Tamarian ship rendezvous at El-Adrel IV and Tamarian Captain Dathon opens communications. The Tamarians speak incomprehensibly, using English words laced with names from their culture.

After the contact fails, Dathon and his first officer argue over Dathon's statement, "Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra." Dathon vanishes, and Picard is kidnapped via transporter. Both are beamed to the planet, where Dathon attempts to communicate again.

Picard deciphers the language, finding that it is based on Tamarian folklore and metaphors. "Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra" refers to two heroes who traveled separately to a distant island, defeated a mighty beast, and left together. El-Adrel is home to such a creature, and Dathon hopes that the Tamarians and the Federation can begin a friendship by likewise defeating a common enemy...

My point for bringing this up is that this story is an example of two cultures seperated by a language barrier. One cultre incorporated their myths into their language in order to communicate and the other culture spoke more literally.

I fear this is one of the differences between the authors of our ancient scriptures and Christians today. Rather than constantly pointing out that Jesus and Paul and Moses refered to Adam and Eve and the story of creation and presume that makes it literal. Perhaps we should consider how these cultures communicated their beliefs, and how we were meant to interprate them.

One truth, Jesus Christ. Reading a literal history of scientific events into Genesis is simply trying to take the story some where it wasn't designed to go.

 

[stumpjumper]

New York Best Sellers List #1: The LEGO of Scripture

How'd you know