Support for ancients not viewing their stories as literal history

[California Tim]

It seems you would rather plead the 5th, so I will not attempt to put words in your mouth and assume one way or the other. But I do thank you for directing me to the "Blue Letter Bible" section that outlines our differences. Since it is no longer coming from my own "limited" mind, Perhaps this information from a more polished source will more clearly enunciate the differences of which I speak. Here are some excerpts:

Interpretive Methods:
Facing the modern Christian are two distinct methods for interpreting the Creation Account: by consulting the discoveries of science or by consulting Scripture's testament to itself. Within both methods are several perspectives and so we will treat each one briefly. Because the science-based methods focus more upon interpreting God's Word through the light of empirical data rather than through the hermeneutical demands of context, we will refer to all these methods as "theories," while exegetically-based methods, being naturally more rigorous and adherent to the discovery of the true meaning of Scripture, will be called "interpretations." We shall also begin with the science-based method and then proceed to deal with those views which are more thoroughly entrenched in Scripture in greater depth.

Science based Methods
Science-based views interpret Scripture through the filter of their experience of general revelation. They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things. Truly, the pressure of the scientific communities — both Christian and secular — can seem overwhelming and nobody wants to feel they have their head in the sand and are ignoring plain evidence. But never should the Christian allow current scientific understanding to supercede the historical and literary intent of the authors of Scripture. We will here discuss briefly several of these viewpoints, but dismiss them in the end as being built upon eisegesis.

Theistic Evolution
Surrendering the historicity and honesty of Scripture beyond all other popular viewpoints, theories of theistic evolution force interpreters to mythologize the Genesis narrative. While maintaining that God did truly maintain control of all creative processes, the view strips Scripture of its accuracy by positing that Adam was not arrived at by fiat creation but through thousands of years of natural evolutionary process aided and directed by a divine touch. The specifics of the view are beyond the scope of this treatment as they question seriously traditional and conservative methods for the interpretation of Scripture—as well as its ability to function as an authority for the believer.

Exegetically-Based Methods
Interpretations that seek first to understand Scripture as it was written with no concern for the opinions of science are really the only way to properly look at the issues involved in the Creation Account. Now of course science can be useful to serve as a warning that perhaps we may need to re-examine our previous exegesis, but it should never serve any interpretive purpose for us. We should never allow anything but God's Word to dictate our understanding of the matters of God's Word. If Scripture says the world is flat, then the world is flat — no matter what science might say. If Scripture says the world is 8,000 years old, then the world is 8,000 years old — no matter what science might say. The only real question then is "What does Scripture say in Genesis 1?"

Final Remarks
To conclude this article, we should remind ourselves that whichever view we decide to support, it must be one that is presented by the Scriptures themselves and not one that we force upon it. And whichever we choose, we must never fail to uphold the historicity and inerrancy of God's Word for it is that upon which the knowledge of our faith is built.
Additionally, it is important — once one decides upon the interpretation he thinks best represents the true meaning of Scripture — to not judge other people for their own views. One's view on Genesis 1 is no more an essential to one's salvation and spiritual well-being than is one's eschatalogical beliefs. There are a number of perspectives on the Creation Week that while not necessarily correct, are not heretical either. We should grant our brethren the same benefit of deciding on an interpretation as we take ourselves.

​

http://blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.html

 

[seebs]

That question has now been begged, called to heel, and ordered to roll over and play dead.

 

[gluadys]

Here are some excerpts:

Vance's signature mentions how unreliable creationist sources are about evolution. The same could be said for non-TE sources about theistic evolution. Better to get a TE to explain the TE viewpoint than rely on a garbled message from a source that opposes TE.

Interpretive Methods:
Facing the modern Christian are two distinct methods for interpreting the Creation Account: by consulting the discoveries of science or by consulting Scripture's testament to itself.​

This assumes that the TEs primary source for interpreting the creation accounts is not scripture. This assumption is not true.

Within both methods are several perspectives and so we will treat each one briefly. Because the science-based methods focus more upon interpreting God's Word through the light of empirical data rather than through the hermeneutical demands of context, we will refer to all these methods as "theories," while exegetically-based methods, being naturally more rigorous and adherent to the discovery of the true meaning of Scripture, will be called "interpretations."

Where on earth does he get the notion that TEs are not just as rigourous in their exegesis as YECists? Frankly I see more sloppy hermeneutics on this forum from anti-evolutionists than from TEs. I have never yet seen a literalist explain the principle by which they connect one passage to another with total disregard for authorship and of time, place, social/political context, audience and theological framework. I don't see how one can even pretend to have a hermeneutics without taking these things into account.

Science based Methods
Science-based views interpret Scripture through the filter of their experience of general revelation. They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things.

Not through "our own" experience of general revelation. That would be arrogant. But through the thoroughly tested conclusions of those who have investigated the general revelation of creation.

But now, let me ask you a few questions:

Does general revelation come from God?
Is it true?
Is there a hierarchy of truths such as that one truth from God is truer than another?

Finally, does all truth come ultimately from God whatever its immediate source?

I simply do not buy the notion that the bible, as a source of truth, is superior to other sources of truth. The pre-eminence of the bible is not because it trumps other sources of truth. It does not and cannot. The pre-eminence of the bible is that it reveals a truth that no other source does---namely the truth of our broken relationship with God, our consequenct sinfulness, and how God has acted to save us from our sin and restore us to fellowship through the life, death and resurrection of his son, Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Word of God.

General revelation simply does not tell us these things. But what it does tell us is just as much God's truth as anything in the bible.

But never should the Christian allow current scientific understanding to supercede the historical and literary intent of the authors of Scripture.

Amen! I think all TEs would agree with this. I know I'm the way out left liberal here, and I can certainly affirm this, so I fully expect our more conservative TEs do.

The problem here is that the author you are quoting thinks this is inconsistent with theistic evolution. He's wrong.

Theistic Evolution
Surrendering the historicity and honesty of Scripture beyond all other popular viewpoints, theories of theistic evolution force interpreters to mythologize the Genesis narrative.

The writer has no understanding at all of a TE perspective. Nowhere will you find a TE attacking the honesty of scripture. Nor do we surrender its historicity when it is validly historic. The point is that historicity has to be established passage by passage. It is not a proper default assumption. Even historical passages have to be interpreted in light of what ancient writers considered to be history and not held to modern "objective" and "factual" standards foreign to that age. The bible, like most ancient writings, freely mingles what a modern historian would separate as history and legend. It is not an attack on the genuine historicity of the bible to acknowledge such characteristics as appropriate for their time.

While maintaining that God did truly maintain control of all creative processes, the view strips Scripture of its accuracy by positing that Adam was not arrived at by fiat creation but through thousands of years of natural evolutionary process aided and directed by a divine touch.

This, of course, presupposes that the fiat creation of Adam is the only proper interpretation of the text. So the criticism is invalid as it is based on the writer's own interpretive bias rather than on an examination of the text.

The specifics of the view are beyond the scope of this treatment as they question seriously traditional and conservative methods for the interpretation of Scripture—as well as its ability to function as an authority for the believer.

Are traditional and conservative methods beyond question? If they were, Jesus should have supported the tradition of the Pharisees instead of castigating them.

And it is the writer's bias which presumes that questioning traditional and conservative methods of interpretation undermines the authority of the bible in a believer's life. Just not true.

Exegetically-Based Methods
If Scripture says the world is flat, then the world is flat — no matter what science might say. If Scripture says the world is 8,000 years old, then the world is 8,000 years old — no matter what science might say. The only real question then is "What does Scripture say in Genesis 1?"

And this is exactly where a literal interpretation totally unguided by science must lead us. To the denial of general revelation, to the denial of a truth from God, simply and solely because it does not agree with a strictly literal interpretation of another truth from God.

We should grant our brethren the same benefit of deciding on an interpretation as we take ourselves.

To that, at least, Amen!​

 

[Vance]

What Gluadys said, in spades. She saved me much time and energy!

It is always so tempting for YEC's to create a version of TE'ism which is easiest for them to argue against rather than what TE's are actually saying. What is ironic is that you would think with such a wide spectrum of beliefs within the TE umbrella, the writer could have hit at least one of us with his descriptive arrow, but he missed all of us! I have never yet met a TE who believes as set out above.

 

[California Tim]

This assumes that the TEs primary source for interpreting the creation accounts is not scripture. This assumption is not true.

Tell me you are joking right? Someone - any TE'ist, please answer this question so adeptly avoided or evaded to date: Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

 

[SBG]

Tell me you are joking right? Someone - any TE'ist, please answer this question so adeptly avoided or evaded to date: Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

I am rather suprised that not one person has answered your question. I have asked many questions here, directed at theistic evolutionists and almost all have been unanswered.

I am not a theistic evolutionists, but I will be the first here to answer your question.

A literal historical interpretation of Genesis is NOT compatable with evolution.

Is there any theistic evolutionists who will answer a question brought to them?

If CT, doesn't mind, I will re-ask his question:

Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

Tim, might I suggest a new thread with this question as the topic?

 

[Vance]

Tell me you are joking right? Someone - any TE'ist, please answer this question so adeptly avoided or evaded to date: Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

It depends on what you mean by literal. If you mean literal in the sense of strict literal historical narrative, such that you read it to mean that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods, then yes, that interpretive approach is entirely inconsistent with what I believe we see from God's Creation: an old earth and evolutionary development.

Now, if by "literal historical" you mean that it gives us valuable information about literal events that happened in our history, then I would say that no, that is not inconsistent with what I believe we see in God's Creation. I think that Genesis 1 and 2 IS meant to tell us about what happened in the past, telling us such LITERAL events as the fact that God created the universe, did so with a plan and purpose, created Man in His image, etc, etc, (see earlier lists of actual, historical events described), but conveys these literal historical events in a figurative, symbolic, typological and poetic framework that is immensely powerful.

The "why" I have expressed so often and in such detail that you have begun to tell me I don't need to keep repeating myself, you got it already!

I should also point out that my fellow TE Glenn (grmorton) disagrees with me, and believes that a literal/historical reading is entirely consistent with evolution.

Going back to your earlier point, in which you thought Gluadys must be joking, I can assure you, I definitely DO use Scripture as my primary authority for what God did in the act of Creation. See my earlier post on this very point.

Edit to add "in-" to consistent in the second paragraph, I got confused by the double negative effect.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Tell me you are joking right? Someone - any TE'ist, please answer this question so adeptly avoided or evaded to date: Is a literal historical interpretation of Genesis incompatable with evolution? After anyone is brave enough to answer that, then please tell me "why" you feel that way? Thank you.

i believe at least 3 of us have answered your question.

1-it depends on what you mean by literal. framework interpretation sees the 6 days as 24 hr days.
2-if you mean by historical that God created in the scientific historical order light-dark=day 1, etc then probably no TE adheres to the historical-literal-scientific order of Gen 1. not even the most conservative. Almost all the conservative TE's i know are FI which is a literary interpretation not a scientific-historical one.

the why is the stuff of 25years+ of studying. i suspect that can not be boiled down into an single online posting.

see GM's website:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis.htm

see karl's:
http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm

or even my feeble attempt:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

 

[Vance]

I would also add the following sites for any YEC who is seriously interested in finding out what TE's believe, in addition to the great summary Alchemist gave which is still on the first page of this forum:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/

 

[SBG]

The problem is, even after reading these links, you still cannot say what theistic evolutionists believe. The reason is, is that there is no unity of beliefs on all subjects within Genesis 1-11.

These don't provide much if any, other than one persons take on evolution and the Bible, and there are many who will disagree with them except on evolution. That is the only unity of belief within the theistic evolutionists community: evolution happened.

The theistic evolutionists themselves are divided as a whole on what exactly they believe Genesis 1-11 is saying.

 

[Vance]

The problem is, even after reading these links, you still cannot say what theistic evolutionists believe. The reason is, is that there is no unity of beliefs on all subjects within Genesis 1-11.

These don't provide much if any, other than one persons take on evolution and the Bible, and there are many who will disagree with them except on evolution. That is the only unity of belief within the theistic evolutionists community: evolution happened.

The theistic evolutionists themselves are divided as a whole on what exactly they believe Genesis 1-11 is saying.

Well, there is more unity than that, but the point is that you must take each as they come and not use generalizations and strawmen when discussing the matter with them.

The areas of general consensus (which is actually as much consensus as you will get from most ANY group of Christians about anything) are:

1. The evidence from God's Creation is that the earth is old
2. The evidence from God's Creation is that life developed in an evolutionary manner over a very long time
3. Scripture is not inconsistent with these facts, if properly read.
4. How one views origins is not a salvation issue and should not become a stumbling block to anyone's faith
5. Dogmatic YEC teaching is damaging to the Church and the Gospel
6. God could have created the universe however he wanted to, there is no limitation on how God COULD have created

Further, most TE's would agree that

- Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be read as strictly literal historical narrative
- There is no true error in Scripture, it is the Holy message of God and can be wholly trusted if properly read

 

[California Tim]

If you mean literal in the sense of strict literal historical narrative, such that you read it to mean that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods, then yes, that interpretive approach is entirely inconsistent with what I believe we see from God's Creation: an old earth and evolutionary development.

Which is what these articles were saying to begin with. So why is there any dispute about the difference in the approaches? I no more assume you dismiss exegesis than you assume I dismiss scientific evidence. The difference is in the priority afforded each:

Because the science-based methods focus more upon interpreting God's Word through the light of empirical data rather than through the hermeneutical demands of context, we will refer to all these methods as "theories," while exegetically-based methods, being naturally more rigorous and adherent to the discovery of the true meaning of Scripture, will be called "interpretations."

Science based Methods
Science-based views interpret Scripture through the filter of their experience of general revelation. They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things.​

 

[Vance]

Which is what these articles were saying to begin with. So why is there any dispute about the difference in the approaches? I no more assume you dismiss exegesis than you assume I dismiss scientific evidence. The difference is in the priority afforded each:

Because the science-based methods focus more upon interpreting God's Word through the light of empirical data rather than through the hermeneutical demands of context, we will refer to all these methods as "theories," while exegetically-based methods, being naturally more rigorous and adherent to the discovery of the true meaning of Scripture, will be called "interpretations."

Science based Methods
Science-based views interpret Scripture through the filter of their experience of general revelation. They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things.​

Yes, but as I explained in my earlier post, neither one of those is true for me, and I don't know of ANY TE on this forum for whom it would be true.

1. I definitely don't focus more on the information that the evidence from God's Creation can provide than the hermeneutical demands in context at all. As I have said over and over, but you keep ignoring, I reached a hermeneutical conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read figuratively BEFORE I even considered the scientific evidence. But even without that, the writer is begging the question somewhat by failing to recognize that part of the hermeneutical demands in context includes the cultural, literary, historical and yes, even the evidence from God's Creation itself. But the writer sets one up against the other, as if they were not intertwined. Within that mixture of exegetical considerations, it is not even an absolute formula regarding the giving of weight. We must always consider Scripture as true and correct, but what we are weighing in the balance is NOT Scripture itself, but our human, fallible interpretation of Scripture. So, it is properly a sliding scale. The greater degree of certainty we place in our own interpretation of Scripture, the more we must insist that all else conform to that interpretation, I agree. Likewise, the stronger the evidence from God's Creation, the more weight we must give it in this analysis. Proper hermeneutics is a process.

In that process, Scripture not only gets top billing, it has complete trump powers. The problem is that I am working (and you are working) with your interpretation of that Scripture. But, to the extent that I am absolutely sure about the meaning of a passage of Scripture, that meaning WILL trump all others.

2. No TE sees any scientific conclusion as incontrovertable. It all has degrees of weight, which always must be held tentatively. but it DOES have weight to the extent that the evidence is properly analyzed and supports the conclusion. Conclusion is, of course, not even the proper word, since science does not reach conclusions in most cases, just best explanations which, in some cases, are so well-supported that they rise to the level of near conclusions, and so often is discussed in those terms. Heliocentrism, for example.

The key when there seems to be a conflict between our hermeneutical conclusion regarding a text and the evidence from God's Creation is honestly placing a weight on the likelihood of correctness of our own fallible human interpretation of a given text and honestly determining the correct value and weight to place on a fallible human scientific conclusion.

 

[Vance]

Here may be a better way of saying it:

If our goal after salvation is to live for Christ, part of doing that is determining what God wants us to do. This is found in Scripture, so we must look to Scripture. This means we must understand what Scripture is telling us. Thus, we must develop a proper hermeneutical process. Part of this process should be a consideration of the historical, cultural, literary basis of the text. Another part of this process should be checking out whether God's Creation itself can add anything about how to best read the Scripture.

So, the study of God's Creation and the conclusions we can draw from that study is not something we do outside of, and in competition to, Scripture, but something that is part of the process of understanding Scripture. This doesn't mean that scientific conclusions control our reading, but is simply part of our hermeneutical process.

I think part of the problem is that because we end up concluding that the scientific evidence is most likely correct and that the fundamentalist reading is incorrect, some YEC's might assume we must have simply accepted the science whole-cloth and let that override Scripture. This is not true by a long shot. The scientific evidence simply plays its role in the hermeneutical process, as it should. I urge you to read what Augustine says about this entire issue in my other post. If the evidence was not very strong for evolution, and the best reading of Genesis 1 and 2, based on all the other hermeneutical considerations was that it should be read as six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago, then that is what I would accept. But neither of those propositions is was the result of my thoughtful and prayerful consideration. As it turned out, the fundamentalist approach was very weak, IMO, and the scientific evidence was extremely strong. So, no matter how much of a hermeneutical advantage I gave to the historical/literal reading, it just didn't cut it in the end.

While I can respect the desire for many Christians to consider the various revelations from God, I place the highest value on the Scriptural revelation. But this makes it even MORE important that I properly read Scripture. Part of reading it properly is considering all the relevant sources of evidence which may shed light on it. Another part is to seek the Spirit's guidance. The last is to be humble enough and wise enough to realize the degree to which you must hold a position tentatively given our fallible human abilities, and the places in which you must hold firm to a specific reading.

 

[seebs]

The problem is, even after reading these links, you still cannot say what theistic evolutionists believe. The reason is, is that there is no unity of beliefs on all subjects within Genesis 1-11.

These don't provide much if any, other than one persons take on evolution and the Bible, and there are many who will disagree with them except on evolution. That is the only unity of belief within the theistic evolutionists community: evolution happened.

The theistic evolutionists themselves are divided as a whole on what exactly they believe Genesis 1-11 is saying.

As are the young-earth creationists. So?

 

[California Tim]

2. No TE sees any scientific conclusion as incontrovertable. It all has degrees of weight, which always must be held tentatively. but it DOES have weight to the extent that the evidence is properly analyzed and supports the conclusion.

Vance, I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing because you seem to understand the statement differently than what I see it saying:

They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things.​

Clearly, by your own answer, you claim that while you may not claim to have an incontrovertible "conclusion", nonetheless the incontrovertible answer remains there to be found in creation itself. So this implies nature (creation), studied enough, reveals truths by which God's word may be revealed or measured. It is a fundamental difference between our methods of arriving at proper interpretation of Biblical accounts.

 

[SBG]

As are the young-earth creationists. So?

Well then, please provide the examples of where yec's don't believe a global flood happened, where yec's don't believe God created and didnt cause evolution, where yec's don't believe there was an Adam or Eve, and where yec's don't believe there was a historical fall of mankind in the beginning.

I was unaware that yec's are as divided on those issues as theistic evolutionists. So please lets see this.

 

[Vance]

Vance, I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing because you seem to understand the statement differently than what I see it saying:

They see the sciences and their own observations of the world around them saying something incontrovertible; and so, they interpret Scripture in light of these things.​

Clearly, by your own answer, you claim that while you may not claim to have an incontrovertible "conclusion", nonetheless the incontrovertible answer remains there to be found in creation itself. So this implies nature (creation), studied enough, reveals truths by which God's word may be revealed or measured. It is a fundamental difference between our methods of arriving at proper interpretation of Biblical accounts.

No, I don't think that incontrovertible truths can be found in a study of God's Creation on every point. Almost every point of knowledge is one that is held tentatively, and conditionally, and with degrees of certitude. Some degrees are VERY high, of course, such as the earth revolving around the sun, and not the other way around. Maybe even so high as to make a distinction with "fact" simply irrelevant.

And I would take issue with your use of the term "measured". This is furthering the idea that the conclusions we reach, even tentatively, about God's Creation stand somehow up against our conclusions about the Scripture and we compare the two and then alter our view of Scripture accordingly. No, I would say that it is a dynamic process. That interactive application of the study of God's Creation, of history, of literature, of culture, of linguistics, etc, etc, should have been involved in the our understanding of the text from the beginning!

So yes, I do believe that, to the extent we can know things from the study of God's Creation, we should definitely allow that to inform (not automatically control) how we read Scripture. I am fully with Augustine on this one. However, since the truths discovered in God's Creation are rarely held to the point of absolute certainty, the degree of that "informing" must be commensurate with that level of certainty. And, of course, an essential part of the equation is our own human abilities in interpretation of the text. The more we are certain of our understanding of a given Scripture if we were to remove evidence from God's Creation from the analysis, the greater the certainty about nature must be to alter that understanding. You must agree that our interpretation of much of Scripture can not be held with 100% certainty.

Would you say that you do not, then, believe that the evidence from God's Creation should inform our interpretive process at all? I would put it to you that you DO allow it to inform your reading of Scripture, regardless.

Let's take two examples. First is the obvious geocentrism issue (don't groan, I heard you!). Without your scientific knowledge, you would read many texts as consistent with a geocentric solar system. Now, you are interpreting those Scriptures and you incorporate your scientific knowledge and naturally just read those texts (which WERE written from a geocentric perspective, by a writer, however inspired, who believed geocentrically) to fit within a heliocentric universe. In the Joshua text, God would have stopped the earth moving, for example, and not the sun itself. In the Creation account, you would not worry as much as your forbears about the fact that the earth was made first and seemingly centrally, and all else was created around it and for it. You would not bat an eye over the idea that the earth is just one planet of many around one sun of billions in one galaxy of billions, you would still accept that man was the center of God's creation. The science, being SO compelling on those points, is simply taken into the process and revises how you WOULD OTHERWISE have read that text. This is acceptable because the scientific evidence is dramatically compelling and the interpretation without that hermeneutical element is not so demanding. So, you go through the process unconsciously.

Second, consider the mustard seed discussion by Jesus. He says it is the smallest seed. Now, without any evidence from God's Creation, you might be inclined to read at literal face value: the mustard seed is, indeed, the smallest seed there is, period. That would be your hermeneutical conclusion and, thus, your reading of the text. Now, you find out that it actually is NOT the smallest seed. Do you ignore this conclusion from science and hold to your interpretive conlcusion reached without that information? Or, do you factor that evidence into your interpretive process and come to a different conclusion? (Jesus meant that it was the smallest seed they would come in contact with, or it was a very small seed and the "smallest" was hyperbole or just some other literary device, or some other conclusion).

Now, again, this is NOT the same as discovering some natural law that a miracle would have to have overcome, since we have no problem with God overcoming natural laws. Those are not the types of scientific discoveries that would impact any Scriptural analysis at all. It is evidence which should not be there if X was true (but is there), or should be there if X were true, (but is not there). If the mustard seed really was the smallest seed in the world, we should not find a smaller one. But there they are. If the earth is really fixed and all revolves around it, we should have seen that in action when we went into space. But instead we see something very different. It is this type of evidence which should be factored into our analysis of Scripture and inform it to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the strength of the evidence.

 

[California Tim]

You must agree that our interpretation of much of Scripture can not be held with 100% certainty.

Actually I will not agree with this statement. It represents in yet another "incontrovertible" way, the differences regarding our viewpoint on how scripture is prioritized.

 

[California Tim]

Let's take two examples. First is the obvious geocentrism issue (don't groan, I heard you!). Without your scientific knowledge, you would read many texts as consistent with a geocentric solar system.

Using your example: For the sake of argument only, if it had been demonstrated conclusively that the Bible taught geocentrism - no "if's", "and's" or "but's" - then would that scripture be true or false?