A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[FJK]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

So, do you believe the 24 hour day described in Genesis is trillions of years, or something like that?

I believe God is the master of, the Creator of, Time and it does not necessarily work the same for him as it does for man with his calendars and definitions.

Do you understand Genesis 1:1?

[RV_Wizard]

47 minutes ago, FJK said:

I believe God is the master of, the Creator of, Time and it does not necessarily work the same for him as it does for man with his calendars and definitions.

Do you understand Genesis 1:1?

When the word yom (or day) is used with a number, it means a single day every time without exception.  When used in conjunction with evening and morning it means a single day, every time without exception.  God, through Moses, wanted to be very clear that the creation week was a regular, ordinary week.  He personally reaffirmed that in Exodus 20:11, when He carved the Ten Commandments into stone and included the words, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It is not possible to read Genesis one and come to any other conclusion unless you are reading it with an agenda of disbelief.

Of all the times I've seen Peter 3:8 quoted or misquoted by proponents of long ages, I have never seen it used in the proper context; just as an excuse not to believe that Genesis chapter one describes real events.

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why would someone spend his time trying to convince Christians that their Bible is not true?

I don't think you are trying to convince us that it's not true.    You are trying to convince us that it means what you wish it meant.

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Do you understand Genesis 1:1?

Yes, I do, and I understand how the phrase ties directly to Jesus.  In fact, you should too because I showed you. 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't think you are trying to convince us that it's not true.    You are trying to convince us that it means what you wish it meant.

 

Here's a test of your reading ability.

The evening and the morning were the first day.

The evening and the morning were the second day.

The evening and the morning were the third day.

Quiz:

How many days were there?

[The Barbarian]

I don't think you are trying to convince us that it's not true.    You are trying to convince us that it means what you wish it meant.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Here's a test of your reading ability.

Here's a test of your reasoning ability.  By definition, literal mornings and evenings require a sun to have them.    There was no sun the first three "days."

So were early Christians like St. Augustine correct in saying that the "days" could not be literal ones?

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

When the word yom (or day) is used with a number, it means a single day every time without exception.  When used in conjunction with evening and morning it means a single day, every time without exception. 

  As you see, the first time it's used in scripture it doesn't mean a literal day.   You're merely assuming what you proposed to prove.

Likewise, you assumed without any attempt to justify the assumption, that if Moses cites Genesis 1, that converts it to a literal history.   

You've merely idolized your own reasoning.

 

 

[Tristen]

On 9/10/2023 at 1:16 AM, Scott Free said:

The Bible is intended to be theological messaging. Using the Bible as a source for empirical scientific research is misappropriating the purpose of God's written Word and distracting from the message of Jesus' eminent return. I would say simply the creation story as a message, that God created in an orderly series of graduated peaceful steps, expressed poetically in a way we can understand. 

The reason natural science and the Bible seem to differ is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia of modern knowledge. Many scriptures on these matters are catering to a Bronze Age audience and poetic in nature, making it difficult to analyze using modern standards that are still very limited, leading to mostly personal interpretations. Everyone, both Christians and Scientist have a partial picture of nature and history, together they make a bigger partial picture that is far from adequate. Only after Jesus returns will the Body of Christ have the faculties to understand the true workings of nature. Now, we can only spin our wheels in the air without any traction toward the absolute truth, except for our understanding of Jesus Christ. Be blessed with humility. So as not to present the stories hand in hand with our beloved Gospel. Creationist fanaticism appears to the world as always angry, promoting hated in God's name, while putting a wall up before non-believers going to the Gospel.

 

Examples:

"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" - Psalm 148:4. Today, we call it "space", a concept unattainable to people of the Iron Age. Many early writers thought that there was a dome of water above them, based on their literal interpretations of several passages in the Bible. This shows the level of misunderstanding we can achieve.

“The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them He has set the world” - 1 Samuel 2:8 A modern view would be something like the core and mantle of the Earth are the Lord's, and around it he has placed the biosphere. The Bible's words are beautiful and preferred, nurturing both mind and heart with epic poetic imagery.

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5. the Sun does not travel around the Earth, failure to promotion our current knowledge. Scriptures are not going to cater to our modern understanding of science, except through End Time prophecy.

"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!" I Corinthians 13:9

 

The problem is that literal interpretation of the English translation presents an inconsistent hermeneutics. This ancient Hebrew view of creation is consistent with Bible scripture as the literal interpretation dictates. A sound doctrine would not to pick and choose what it should believe. Leaving all this out of teaching causes doubt on the validity of the literal approach.

 

 

 

 

The Genesis interpretation that makes the most sense. This illustrates how simple the language of Genesis might have to be toward it's targeted audience of Bronze Age society.

Seven days of creation. Formation of the Solar System(time is relative to the observer):

In the start of the creation story God is viewing the Earth as a potential contained within the formless mass at hand, only the mind of God can penetrate to this image. God seems to be viewing the ultimate potential of things in the story, not the actual process employed to achieve it.  (The waters are a reference to the realm beyond sky, Psalm 148:4)

0) Nebula

1) Sun and planet formation(Earths mass forms umbra)

2) Atmospheric stratification(Moon formation caused Earth to temporarily have a thick expansive envelope exhibiting features of a gas planet)

3) Water world forming volcanic plates(algae/flora created, plate tectonics begin).

4) The clearing of the atmosphere(second light - carbon capture by algae and tectonics, carbon cycle begins)

5) Aquatic life and dinosaurs are created

6) Mammals/Mankind are created

7) The earth becomes God's completed work

Hey Scott,

I haven’t followed the conversation – and so am only responding to the OP. My apologies if I repeat ideas that have already been discussed.

You said, “The Bible is intended to be theological messaging. Using the Bible as a source for empirical scientific research is misappropriating the purpose of God's written Word and distracting from the message of Jesus' eminent return”

“The Bible” is God’s highest and most authoritative communication to humanity; it is truth delivered to a deceived world. It is light in the darkness. As truth, we should accept God’s word as truth in every aspect – including claims about the natural world. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the credibility of scripture as a whole.

As a matter of hermeneutics, the suggestion that we can simply wave away disagreeable aspects of God’s word as “poetic” distractions is incredibly disconcerting.

 

“I would say simply the creation story as a message, that God created in an orderly series of graduated peaceful steps, expressed poetically in a way we can understand”

So then, if God’s Word disagrees with a supposedly scientific idea, we have the authority to dismiss that part of God’s Word as nothing more than a pretty, poetic lie? Even though scientific ideas are subject to constant change and upgrade (by design), we are to attribute more credibility to those changeable human ideas, than to God’s own words?

 

“The reason natural science and the Bible seem to differ is that the Bible is not an encyclopedia of modern knowledge”

Natural science and the Bible do not “differ” in any objective measure.

There are some subjective aspects of science (interpretations and speculations) that disagree with scripture. Nevertheless, all of the (objective) facts can be interpreted to fit very neatly into the Biblical model of reality. A failure to recognize this distinction between subjective and objective aspects of “natural science” speaks to confirmation bias - i.e. being conditioned to give higher credence to the secular interpretation of the facts than is warranted by the investigation process.

 

“Many scriptures on these matters are catering to a Bronze Age audience and poetic in nature, making it difficult to analyze using modern standards that are still very limited, leading to mostly personal interpretations.”

If you are concerned about “personal interpretations”, maybe stick to the actual words God used to convey His message – rather than making the substantial assumption that our ancestors were morons that God had to lie to – so they could understand.

There is no evidence that our ancestors lacked the intelligence to understand that the creation could be very old, or that our ancestors were animals.

And the evidence from the Genesis text (i.e. the grammatical context) overwhelmingly speaks to an historical narrative (a series of subsequent real events). Your attempt to wave away the details of Genesis as merely “poetic in nature” notwithstanding.

 

“Everyone, both Christians and Scientist have a partial picture of nature and history, together they make a bigger partial picture that is far from adequate. Only after Jesus returns will the Body of Christ have the faculties to understand the true workings of nature”

Sure – but that doesn’t mean we get to reinterpret God’s words to suit modern sensibilities.

The world constantly bombards us with new ideas that disagree with the Bible. Therefore, according to your reasoning, we should accept the worldly ideas, and reject the plainest reading of the Bible – setting aside the disagreeable scriptures as merely “poetic” – because after all, we don’t know everything and will only know “after Jesus returns”.

Alternatively, (and my preferred approach), we to choose to believe that God’s Word has the highest claim on truth – and be more skeptical about the world’s ideas.

 

“Now, we can only spin our wheels in the air without any traction toward the absolute truth, except for our understanding of Jesus Christ. Be blessed with humility. So as not to present the stories hand in hand with our beloved Gospel”

If you are embarrassed by what the Bible actually says, that is on you.

Far from “humility”, the epitome of arrogance would be for me to presume the right to set aside and/or reinterpret God’s words away from their plainest meaning – merely because I had become convinced that I am somehow intellectually obligated to a human idea that disagrees with that part of scripture.

 

“Creationist fanaticism appears to the world as always angry, promoting hated in God's name, while putting a wall up before non-believers going to the Gospel”

This is a series of irrational statements (technically Adhominem and Unsupported Assertions).

My position would commonly be described as Young Earth Creationism (YEC). I have a heart-felt, well-reasoned, thoroughly-studied position (including attaining postgraduate scientific credentials). Why is my position suddenly being characterized as “fanaticism”? What is “angry” or hateful about me holding this position? This is all empty rhetorical bluster.

Furthermore, I anecdotally find many “non-believers” respect the fact that I have answers reconciling the facts to the Biblical model of reality. It frustrates others, and even makes some angry – but that is between them and God. Furthermore, I find my allegiance to scripture (as written) encourages the faith of other believers – in the knowledge that one can trust scripture without intellectual compromise (despite the deceptive rhetoric suggesting otherwise).

 

“"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" - Psalm 148:4. Today, we call it "space", a concept unattainable to people of the Iron Age”

I’m not sure why you have such a low opinion of your ancestor’s intellectual capacities. Why would the “concept” of “space” be “unattainable to people of the Iron Age”? I can explain that concept to a five-year-old. It’s not all that hard to understand the “concept”. You seem to think they were all idiots.

Job 26:7 tells us that God “stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing”. It is therefore plausible that early Hebrews had a fairly sophisticated understanding of cosmology.

But yes, Psalms are self-evidently lyrical – thus providing plenty of scope (or context) for assuming poetic expression. You therefore have to justify making that same assumption for the early chapters of Genesis. You don’t get to decide God’s words are “poetic” – merely because you disagree with the plain meaning of the text.

Furthermore, “poetic” does not mean dismissible. In your example, “space” is poetically characterized as “the heavens”. But in your “poetic” interpretation of Genesis, you are dismissing most of the textual details in favor of a handful of vague, generalized ideas.

And then I would wonder – at what point do your hermeneutics of Genesis permit a switch from the text being dismissible “poetry”, and start being a trustworthy recording of genuine history?

 

“Many early writers thought that there was a dome of water above them, based on their literal interpretations of several passages in the Bible. This shows the level of misunderstanding we can achieve.”

Regardless of what supposedly “early writers thought”, the Bible does not state that there is “a dome of water above” us. This is neither a “literal”, nor “poetic” claim of the Bible. The relevant passages do employ rare uses of certain Hebrew words. Nevertheless, your supposed “literal” interpretation requires reading assumptions into the text, as-well-as relying on very narrow definitions of Hebrew words (and that on top of ignoring the contextual, lyrical aspect of context).

But again – just because the Bible uses “poetic” language in one context does not mean we can arbitrarily decide that the Bible is using “poetic” language in any context where we find ourselves uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the words.

 

““The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them He has set the world” - 1 Samuel 2:8 A modern view would be something like the core and mantle of the Earth are the Lord's, and around it he has placed the biosphere.”

This verse arguably has nothing to do with the “biosphere” or “core and mantle” of the earth. The statement self-evidently makes use of architectural analogy to convey the idea that God is all-powerful and in control of the events happening on earth. In-context, there is no reason to assume this is a statement about geology whatsoever – but rather, God’s sovereignty.

Further to context, this statement is not a claim from God at all, but a recorded portion of Hannah’s prayer.

 

“The Bible's words are beautiful and preferred, nurturing both mind and heart with epic poetic imagery”

Except – the context reveals this statement is not a claim from God about geology at all – not even in the remotest poetic sense.

 

“"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5. the Sun does not travel around the Earth, failure to promotion our current knowledge. Scriptures are not going to cater to our modern understanding of science, except through End Time prophecy.”

This scripture does not say that the sun travels “around the Earth”.

In scientific reasoning, all momentum is an artifact of perspective (or a point of reference). You think you are stopped at a red light, but you only appear stationary from one perspective. In broader reality, you are on the surface of a spinning planet that is hurtling through space. Yet, it would not contradict science to claim you were stopped.

Likewise, the sun absolutely rises in the eastern sky, then moves across the sky and sets in the west, only to return again to the eastern sky the following morning. Even though we now better understand the broader cosmological context, there is nothing scientifically untrue in this statement.

 

“"Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture!" I Corinthians 13:9”

This does not excuse unsound hermeneutics.

The Bible says what it says. And we don’t get to arbitrarily decide that it means something else when we disagree with it.

 

“The problem is that literal interpretation of the English translation presents an inconsistent hermeneutics”

Very few people interpret the Bible as literally as you are suggesting. In fact, I have never met anyone who does so.

My issue is, in terms of hermeneutics, you are deciding that you can dismiss details contained in God’s own words, in favor of a vague, generalized summary of the text – and all because a) there is a secular narrative that you feel obligated to, and b) we have imperfect knowledge.

 

“This ancient Hebrew view of creation is consistent with Bible scripture as the literal interpretation dictates. A sound doctrine would not to pick and choose what it should believe. Leaving all this out of teaching causes doubt on the validity of the literal approach.”

The YEC position does not apply this super-literalist “approach”.

Trying to conflate this “literal approach” with YEC is either uninformed or dishonest.

 

“The Genesis interpretation that makes the most sense. This illustrates how simple the language of Genesis might have to be toward it's targeted audience of Bronze Age society.”

But it’s not what the Bible says. If the supposed dumb-dumbs “of Bronze Age society” added their own biases to the interpretation process, that is not God’s fault. If people go beyond the words that are written, that’s an error in their interpretation methodology.

 

“Seven days of creation. Formation of the Solar System(time is relative to the observer):”

And so we begin the process of dismantling God’s words. God said He created the universe in 6 days. But since “time is relative to the observer”, those days can mean anything except 24 hours as we experience days.

Here we have the first detail of text we are now permitted to dismiss. By this argument, the plainly stated time-frame of creation can now be disregarded. The detail of seven numbered days with evenings and mornings is relegated into irrelevance. I wonder how many other words God wasted in Genesis on those Bronze age knuckleheads.

 

“In the start of the creation story God is viewing the Earth as a potential contained within the formless mass at hand, only the mind of God can penetrate to this image. God seems to be viewing the ultimate potential of things in the story, not the actual process employed to achieve it.  (The waters are a reference to the realm beyond sky, Psalm 148:4)

0) Nebula

1) Sun and planet formation(Earths mass forms umbra)

2) Atmospheric stratification(Moon formation caused Earth to temporarily have a thick expansive envelope exhibiting features of a gas planet)

3) Water world forming volcanic plates(algae/flora created, plate tectonics begin).

4) The clearing of the atmosphere(second light - carbon capture by algae and tectonics, carbon cycle begins)

5) Aquatic life and dinosaurs are created

6) Mammals/Mankind are created

7) The earth becomes God's completed work”

Well, that is definitely one story of history. But that is very different story to the history spelled out in Genesis.

 

 

[Scott Free]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well, that is definitely one story of history. But that is very different story to the history spelled out in Genesis.

Paul taught us better than that. We know the full truth has not been revealed to us and that we only have a dim window into God's glory. I am taught that making bold, presumptuous proclamations of total and complete understanding is not in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Edited February 10 by Scott Free

[Tristen]

3 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

Paul taught us better than that. We know the full truth has not been revealed to us and that we only have a dim window into God's glory. I am taught that making bold, presumptuous proclamations of total and complete understanding is not in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

But we do have some truth - as has been revealed to us by God in His own words. That revealed truth is not negated by the fact that we don't have all of the truth.

I did not make any "bold, presumptuous proclamations of total and complete understanding". I simply provided a rational assessment and rebuttal of your stated position. I explained some of the reasons I disagree with you, and why I think your approach to hermeneutics sets a dangerous precedent for how you interpret (or interpret away) the rest of scripture.

Your response to my comments was Adhominem. You ignored my arguments - preferring to suggest that my arguments are "not in the Spirit of Jesus Christ".

The fact is - your provided story of history is very different to God's provided story of history. There are explicitly different time frames, different orders of events - many events in your story are not mentioned in God's story.

Now you can say, 'maybe God really meant this or that' - or maybe God just gave them a nice creation poem because He was dealing with dimwits from the Bronze age. But ultimately, you are using this rationale to dismiss the most straight-forward understanding of the actual words God used to communicate to us.  That at-the-very-least should give you pause - and be a sufficiently serious reason to step back, take a breath, and humbly hear out the other side of the argument (i.e. before you start labelling them "angry" and fanatical or question them being "in the Spirit of Jesus Christ").

 

[Scott Free]

15 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Now you can say, 'maybe God really meant this or that' - or maybe God just gave them a nice creation poem because He was dealing with dimwits from the Bronze age.

I believe the Bible is our authority, the inspired Word of God that edifies us. I also believe that God delivers information on a need to know basis appropriate for our stages of development. I wait eagerly for the Resurrection, so I can know God even as I am known. Thank you, Jesus, for opening the door.

Edited February 10 by Scott Free