Trusting science

[pudmuddle]

There seems to be a lot of statements made that go something like this:
"A literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatable with science."

So I thought I would try to explain in simple terms why I don't take all science that is presented as fact. This especially applys to anthropology.

One of my fascinations happens to be primitive technology. Hench, I spend a lot of time studying the methods of people who start fires with bowdrills, braintan, flintknap, etc.
Reading accounts by "experts" on these subjects can be enlightening or amusing, depending on whether the expert in question actually practices primitive technology or is a pencil pusher.
Since my speciality is braintan, I get a particular kick out of some descriptions written by "authoritys"
There is a world of differece between studying a bone or stone tool and deciding what it was used for and actually using it for said purpose.
When I read a book on Native cultures and find that they have grossly misrepresented what braintanning entails, I have a hard time believing that all or even most of their other observations, can be taken without a huge grain of salt.
The further back they go, the more room there is for error, esp. when working with cultures that don't have a language for them to study.
I also have reasons to believe that some evidence is obscured or misrepresented, but that's another story. All this is simply logic and maybe a bit of cynisism. When it comes to questions of faith, I'll trust the Bible before any book that was not inspired by God.

 

[wblastyn]

There seems to be a lot of statements made that go something like this:
"A literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatable with science."

It's more likely the arguement is "A literal interpretation of Genesis is incompatable with Creation".

 

[Ark Guy]

How is that wblastyn?

 

[wblastyn]

God's creation shows the earth is ancient and organisms change over time and all share a common ancestor, they were not zapped into existance in their full form.

 

[Serapha]

God's creation shows the earth is ancient and organisms change over time and all share a common ancestor, they were not zapped into existance in their full form.

If your statement is true, would you please identify what the common ancestor is for all organisms?

No dissertations please, you should be able to answer the question in five words or less.


"The common ancestor is _______________"
~malaka~

 

[webboffin]

Q. If you cannot believe in God's creation in full then what else in the Bible do you not believe in?

 

[JesseB.]

Just what exactly is this thread about? If it is about trusting Science, I put my trust in both the Holy Word & in Science. The two coincide with one another. At least in my mind.

 

[pudmuddle]

Just what exactly is this thread about? If it is about trusting Science, I put my trust in both the Holy Word & in Science. The two coincide with one another. At least in my mind.

The point is: when the two seem to contradict each other, which do you believe?

 

[Vance]

When the two seem to contradict each other, I do not make a knee-jerk reaction either way. There are two possibilities: either my understanding of God's Scripture is wrong or my understanding of God's Creation is wrong. I accept that my understanding of either is equally likely to be at fault in causing the seeming contradiction, so I begin to look into the matter more closely.

To automatically assume that the Bible is in error because of the seeming contradiction is not appropriate.

To automatically assume that the conclusion of the scientific community is in error is also not appropriate.

 

[Sinai]

The point is: when the two seem to contradict each other, which do you believe?

I suggest that if you think that scripture and science seem to be contradicting each other, it is very likely that you either do not understand what science is actually presenting or that you do not fully understand what the Bible may be saying--or both. In other words, it may be time to check both the most credible scientific sources available, and to check what the actual Hebrew or Greek scriptures say--and what the range of meanings is for the words and phrases in question.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The point is: when the two seem to contradict each other, which do you believe?

If a well tested theory contradicts my interpretation of the Bible, my interpretation is probably what is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

There seems to be a lot of statements made that go something like this:
"A literal interpretation of the Bible is incompatable with science."

So I thought I would try to explain in simple terms why I don't take all science that is presented as fact. This especially applys to anthropology.

One of my fascinations happens to be primitive technology. Hench, I spend a lot of time studying the methods of people who start fires with bowdrills, braintan, flintknap, etc.
Reading accounts by "experts" on these subjects can be enlightening or amusing, depending on whether the expert in question actually practices primitive technology or is a pencil pusher.
Since my speciality is braintan, I get a particular kick out of some descriptions written by "authoritys"
There is a world of differece between studying a bone or stone tool and deciding what it was used for and actually using it for said purpose.
When I read a book on Native cultures and find that they have grossly misrepresented what braintanning entails, I have a hard time believing that all or even most of their other observations, can be taken without a huge grain of salt.
The further back they go, the more room there is for error, esp. when working with cultures that don't have a language for them to study.
I also have reasons to believe that some evidence is obscured or misrepresented, but that's another story. All this is simply logic and maybe a bit of cynisism. When it comes to questions of faith, I'll trust the Bible before any book that was not inspired by God.

Very good post ---

 

[philadiddle]

The point is: when the two seem to contradict each other, which do you believe?

From the early church father St. Augustine of Hippo:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]​

In my own wording, we shouldn't look stupid to atheists when they have a well tested explanation of the world, and we just say "nu uh, this bronze age book says otherwise!"

 

[pgp_protector]

And another Zombie thread brought back to life.

Not bad AV, 6 year old thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

And another Zombie thread brought back to life.

Not bad AV, 6 year old thread.

Hey --- a good post is a good post --- no matter what year it was posted.

Unlike today's science, which has a very short shelf-life, the Bible's truths are eternal.

 

[Assyrian]

Very good post ---

Hope he appreciates it

Last Activity: 11th June 2005 06:53 PM

Hey --- a good post is a good post --- no matter what year it was posted.

Unlike today's science, which has a very short shelf-life, the Bible's truths are eternal.

Unlike bible interpetations of course. Geocentrism didn't do too well. Neither did Usher's young earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither did Usher's young earth.

You mean the Bible's young earth?

Usher just added the numbers.

I'd say YEC is alive and doing well.

 

[Assyrian]

Did the bible say to add up the numbers?
Or not to get caught up in genealogies?
Adding up the dates was Ussher's idea, not the bible's. Adding the Genesis days to the genealogies was Ussher's idea too, not the bible's. The bible doesn't tell us the earth is young.

I'd say YEC is alive and doing well.

How long after Copernicus did geocentrism keep hopping around?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE

 

[70x7]

The Bible does say how old this earthly place is. Maybe not by a direct quote as "The Lord saideth the worldeth is xxxx years old", but anyone is capable of doing the math. Why else would He want us to know these geneologies and thier births and deaths? If all that is trivial then why put it?

 

[Assyrian]

OK, off the top of my head, in the bible genealogies seem to be used to remind the Israelites their heritage as children of Abraham, and heirs to the promised land. It reminds them they are created in God's image. In the NT they are used to show Christ as a son of David, and in Luke as the son of God. They were seen as having symbolic significance in Matthew's reference to the 14 (possibly 2x7) generations between Abraham and David, David and the exile and the exile and Christ. Or Matthew was saying there were 14 generations without a royal throne, 14 with, and 14 generations after that it was tme for God to re-established the throne of David in Christ. Other than that, in the NT, believers are told not to get caught up in them

1Tim 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

Just because OT genealogies were important to the Jews, it does not mean when Ussher found a clever new use for them, it was what God intended them for all along.