Science and biblical interpretation

[picnic]

A very simplistic way of looking at things:

Science says the Earth is old.

A literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis would suggest a young earth.

Therefore either science is wrong or reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally is wrong.

How do we decide which is wrong and how much should we let things external to the Bible influence our interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Mallon]

Great question.
In trying to formulate an answer, it's probably worth noting that this isn't the first time we've been faced with such a problem. Once upon a time, the church fathers argued adamantly for geocentrism -- that is, the idea that the sun orbits about the Earth, rather than the other way around. And they provided convincing biblical support for their case as well (the Bible speaks of the Earth as being "immobile" and of the sun as moving about the Earth on many occasions).
Then along came Copernicus and Galileo, who used science to argue that the Earth, in fact, revolved around the sun. People like Luther and Calvin mocked these findings at the time, saying heliocentrism was in direct contradiction to what the Bible "clearly" had to say about the movement of the heavenly bodies. Of course, we have no doubt today that the Earth moves about the sun, and have come to accept that the cosmology presented in the Bible was written from the ancient, phenomemological perspective of the Hebrews.
Having said all that, I think that when it comes to more current hot topics like the age of the Earth and biological evolution, we ought to take a lesson from the history books and seriously examine our simplistic interpretation of the Bible when the scientific evidence is overwhelming in favour of an ancient Earth and common descent. After all, the Bible wasn't written to teach us about science. It was written to make us wise for salvation.

 

[redghost]

Of course, we have no doubt today that the Earth moves about the sun, and have come to accept that the cosmology presented in the Bible was written from the ancient, phenomemological perspective of the Hebrews.

Hi Mallon:

What other verses/areas in the Bible would you point to as being examples of the Bible being written from the perspective of an ancient Hebrew cosmology?

You've mentioned the "pillars/earth established" type of verses. Also implied in your answer would be Genesis 1 and 2 (I presume). Any others?

cheers,
rg

 

[Mallon]

There are many examples of ancient Hebrew science in the Bible. There are references to the Earth being flat (e.g., Job 38:13-14, Isaiah 40:22, Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11), to the firmament being a solid, tent-like covering of the Earth (e.g., Genesis 1:6-8, 14-17; Job 37:18; Ezekiel 1:22), to the stars being pinpricks of light set in the firmament, capable of falling to Earth (Isaiah 14:12, Daniel 8:10, Mark 13:25, Revelation 12:4), to preformatism (e.g., Genesis 29:31, Deuteronomy 7:13, 1 Samuel 1:5, Proverbs 30:16, Romans 4:19), etc. See Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation book for more.

 

[juvenissun]

A very simplistic way of looking at things:

Science says the Earth is old.

A literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis would suggest a young earth.

Therefore either science is wrong or reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally is wrong.

How do we decide which is wrong and how much should we let things external to the Bible influence our interpretation of the Bible?

Nothing is wrong. They are both right.

 

[Assyrian]

Therefore either science is wrong or reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally is wrong.

I think you have it there. As Christians we believe the God the Creator is trustworthy. What he has created in the natural world is not going to contradict what he told us in his word. So when we come across an apparent contradiction it is important to check both the science and our interpretation of scripture. The thing is, science does check its theories, it tests them and tests them again from every possible angle. Christians on the other hand have an unfortunate tendency to think their interpretations could not possibly be wrong.

But not always. It is important to realise modern creationism is in fact a bit of step backwards. When geology began to learn about the age of the earth, the church did not hide its head in the stand, they saw the science was sound and began to look and see if there were other ways to interpret Genesis. It is not just traditional denominations we are talking about here, by the beginning of the 20 century, leading evangelicals, the founders of the Fundamentalist movement like James Orr all believed geology was reliable and interpreted Genesis in line with an ancient earth either as Day Age or Gap Theory.

 

[OutsideNormal]

A very simplistic way of looking at things:

Science says the Earth is old.

A literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis would suggest a young earth.

Therefore either science is wrong or reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally is wrong.

How do we decide which is wrong and how much should we let things external to the Bible influence our interpretation of the Bible?

If the verifiable facts of the world contradict what the Bible says, then the only option open to Christians is to realize that many parts of the Bible were never meant to be read literally. The creation story especially should not be taken as literal truth, because if we take it as literal truth then that means that God is trying to deceive us with the information that we can learn from the world around us.

 

[JesusThree16]

science will vindicate us in the end. we have the truth on our side. science is right, if you know what science to look out for.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nothing is wrong. They are both right.

1 ≠ 2. The Earth cannot be both 4.5 billion years old and 6000 years old.

 

[Chesterton]

When Moses, or Job, or Abraham or whoever actually set pen to paper (or chisel to stone), and wrote scientifically falsifiable things such as “God caused the sun to stand still…”, what was their direct inspiration to do so? Where did their information come from?

But also, why do we hold them to a different standard than moderns who have used metaphor, such as a George Bernard Shaw or a Shirley MacLaine? The fact that one is true and the others false (in my opinion) has nothing to do with their use, or lack of use, of metaphor. Is it because we instinctively feel that one (the older) is truer than the others? If that’s the case we should cut it even more slack.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When Moses, or Job, or Abraham or whoever actually set pen to paper (or chisel to stone), and wrote scientifically falsifiable things such as “God caused the sun to stand still…”, what was their direct inspiration to do so? Where did their information come from?

If the event took place, I daresay it came from their observation of the Sun ceasing its progression across the sky. In other words, their inspiration for writing "God caused the Sun to stand still" was the Sun standing still (relatively speaking).

But also, why do we hold them to a different standard than moderns who have used metaphor, such as a George Bernard Shaw or a Shirley MacLaine? The fact that one is true and the others false (in my opinion) has nothing to do with their use, or lack of use, of metaphor. Is it because we instinctively feel that one (the older) is truer than the others? If that’s the case we should cut it even more slack.

Christians hold them to be metaphorical for the same reason they hold Genesis to be metaphorical: it just doesn't match up with reality. Either God is deceiving us, or it's metaphorical (or otherwise non-literal).

 

[Chesterton]

It would be almost impossible to communicate without metaphor. If I wanted to tell a friend I’m going fishing tomorrow “at sunrise”, without sounding like a primitive ignoramus, I’d have to say something like “I’m going fishing at the next occurrence of the earth rotating to the point where, at the position of the body of water where I will fish, my eyeballs are able to directly view the star closest to me”.

If I were an atheist seeking to attack Judeo-Christian ideas and tradition, I would not, if I had a shred of intellectual honesty, even think of mentioning the use of metaphor as an issue. So why is it even discussed at all among Christians?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It would be almost impossible to communicate without metaphor. If I wanted to tell a friend I’m going fishing tomorrow “at sunrise”, without sounding like a primitive ignoramus, I’d have to say something like “I’m going fishing at the next occurrence of the earth rotating to the point where, at the position of the body of water where I will fish, my eyeballs are able to directly view the star closest to me”.

Or, "I'm going fishing at 6:04am, local time". Moreover, attacking the etymological roots of the word 'sunrise' is pointless: we don't equate 'sunrise' to the movement of the Sun, but rather the apparent movement of the Sun relative to the horizon.

If I were an atheist seeking to attack Judeo-Christian ideas and tradition, I would not, if I had a shred of intellectual honesty, even think of mentioning the use of metaphor as an issue. So why is it even discussed at all among Christians?

Because the issue is about what parts are metaphorical. The atheist doesn't care what parts of the Bible are to be taken metaphorical, since she doesn't believe any of it is true. The Christian, on the other hand, has to decide which bits are literal, which are metaphorical, etc.

 

[gluadys]

When Moses, or Job, or Abraham or whoever actually set pen to paper (or chisel to stone), and wrote scientifically falsifiable things such as “God caused the sun to stand still…”, what was their direct inspiration to do so? Where did their information come from?

I don't know about the inspiration side of it, but their information came from the common cosmology of their culture.

 

[Garyzenuf]

If the verifiable facts of the world contradict what the Bible says, then the only option open to Christians is to realize that many parts of the Bible were never meant to be read literally. The creation story especially should not be taken as literal truth, because if we take it as literal truth then that means that God is trying to deceive us with the information that we can learn from the world around us.

Where does it end? Will more and more of the bible be seen as a metephor due to things science will reveal in the future? I mean if you start down this road of the bible not being literal, isn't there the threat of one day Christianity becoming just another philosophy on how to live your life?

(this may not be the right forum for these questions, but those were the thoughts this post brought up for me).

 

[gluadys]

Where does it end? Will more and more of the bible be seen as a metephor due to things science will reveal in the future? I mean if you start down this road of the bible not being literal, isn't there the threat of one day Christianity becoming just another philosophy on how to live your life?

(this may not be the right forum for these questions, but those were the thoughts this post brought up for me).

We keep stumbling over the meaning of the word "literal". Let's remember that every text has a literal meaning, even a work of fantasy. "Literal" is not the same thing as "true" or "historical" or "real". "Literal" simply means that the common sense, physical meaning of a text is the intended meaning. Yet the text may still be describing something fantastic, like a scene from a Harry Potter novel.

I think metaphor is the wrong category to use for the "scientific" references of the biblical writers. They did not intend to use metaphor when they spoke of the foundations of the earth. To them, such foundations were as factual as the earth's orbit is to us. Better to think of such references as grounded in a pre-scientific "theory" of the cosmos.

In most cases they are incidental to the theological point that the writer is making: usually one that affirms God as creator. We can certainly agree that God is creator of the earth no matter whether it is set on foundations or circling a star.

I think the value of a "literal" bible is oversold. Better to discuss what the lasting truth of any passage is. To what extent does that truth depend on the factual historicity of the text into which it is woven?

 

[Van]

Hi Picnic;

A very simplistic way of looking at things:
Science says the Earth is old.
A literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis would suggest a young earth.
Therefore either science is wrong or reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally is wrong. How do we decide which is wrong and how much should we let things external to the Bible influence our interpretation of the Bible?

As was observed, a very good question. When two things we believe are true are in conflict, that presents us with a paradox. So lets back up, should be believe the current thinking of science is true? Or has scientific thinking evolved over the years, changing what was thought to be true in the past to falsehood as the new view replaces it? Yes. Therefore we should not view current science as necessarily true, but just what seems true based on the state of our knowledge at this time.

And we can view the Bible in a similar way. We can accept the Bible as trustworthy and reliable while also accepting our understanding of the Bible may be flawed around the edges. It was written by men, primarily for the audience at the time, and so, as was also observed before, it reflects the world view of the times. When we say, to the ends of the earth, we do not now think of a literal edge, but rather to the ends means as far as we can, which is everywhere. So the principle, everywhere we can, remains trustworthy, while the world view that the earth has literal ends and corners is flawed.

Lets turn to Genesis 1 and 2. If we "interpret" the meaning of "day" to mean a twenty four hour day, then the Bible does suggest a young earth. But if we "interpret a "day" to be an indeterminate period, the the earth could be way more than 6000 years old.

So we have at least three things in play. One, does the Bible contain the mistaken views of men? Two, is our interpretation of the Bible flawed. And three, is the current view of science flawed. Based on this, I think any jury in the land would have reasonable doubt about whether the Bible is actually untrustworthy.

Final point, please read Job 38. It says we do not know how God created the heavens and the earth because we were not there. That leaves us with "God did it either supernaturally or naturally or in some combination of both." I think Paul would say, that is a trustworthy statement. God Bless

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know about the inspiration side of it, but their information came from the common cosmology of their culture.

Weren’t the ideas of the Old Testament opposed to the common cosmology? Weren’t idolatry and polytheism the Jew’s natural bent, the same as their neighbors? The stories we have is that the Jews were always falling away from, or rejecting their own ideas, and that it often required singular inspired reformers/prophets to remind people, and keep their ideas intact. These ideas which the reformers advised them to reject must have developed from a different cosmology.

 

[Assyrian]

Yet the reformers never preached against pagan geocentrism, they preached against idolatry and worshipping the host of heaven, the sun, moon and stars were God's creation they were not gods. But when the prophet described the sun and moon, they used the same physical cosmology to describe how they move as all the nations around them.

 

[Mallon]

Weren’t the ideas of the Old Testament opposed to the common cosmology? Weren’t idolatry and polytheism the Jew’s natural bent, the same as their neighbors? The stories we have is that the Jews were always falling away from, or rejecting their own ideas, and that it often required singular inspired reformers/prophets to remind people, and keep their ideas intact. These ideas which the reformers advised them to reject must have developed from a different cosmology.

Assyrian's right. The writers of the OT were set against the theological underpinnings of the cosmology of the time, not so much against the structure of the universe itself. Like the Babylonians (see Enuma Elish), the Hebrews assumed that God formed the earth out of pre-existing waters (Gen 1:2). And like the Egyptians, they assumed the earth was covered by a solid dome (the Hebrews called it a 'firmament'; the Egyptians called it the sky-god Nut). The most striking difference between the cosmologies of the Hebrews and their surrounding societies is that the Hebrews believed one God created the world and everything in it with purpose, whereas the surrounding societies largely believed that the world was formed by accident in the aftermath of a war between their gods (the Babylonians believed that the world was formed from the bodyparts of the goddess Tiamat, for example).