You are not logged in.
I have listened to John Alfke, Elaine Nelson, and Neal Walls [show us the DOME], put the Bible down because it does not reflect modern science. They blame God for not revealing to the writers of the Bible our modern paradigms. Will our current paradigms of the cosmos be the same 10 years from now?? Who knows. But read this as a possible help: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Respecting paradigms <BR> <BR>I want to return now to the fundamental question posed above: How should one read the Bible in light of modern scientific knowledge? This is an issue with many perspectives, and a comprehensive review belongs to another article. But I would like to share some thoughts that I offer to my students for their consideration. I agree with Nelson and Reynolds that one should not read meanings into biblical texts that are not there in order to make them conform to modern scientific knowledge.64 Regretfully, some of their colleagues in the young earth creationist movement are prone to do just that. <BR> <BR>Besides the earth's sphericity, Eastman purports to find references to such modern scientific knowledge as ocean currents (Isa. 43:16; Ps. 8:8), elementary particles (Heb. 11:3), and nuclear explosions (2 Peter 3:10).65 Such fanciful eisegesis as this is matched by Morris' readings into the text of Job, whom he credits with knowledge of the hydrological cycle (28:24-27), the rotation of the earth (38:12-14), and an expanding, unbounded universe (22:12; 9:8), among other things.66 Their writings reveal a sincere devotion to the Bible and a desire to convince others that the Bible is "scientifically accurate," but I have to say, with respect, that I think such extreme readings into the texts really do a disservice to the Bible. In claiming that Holy Scripture contains accurate scientific knowledge that only our age has caught up with, they empty these passages of their historical, cultural, or cosmological meanings and impose upon them meanings which the texts themselves simply cannot bear. As Augustine put it, so well, they find not what is in Scripture but in themselves as interpreters.67 Consequently, what the biblical writers themselves sought to convey is lost, and the Christian who reads these and other texts through these creationist lenses is deprived of the pleasure of wrestling with their intended meanings.68 <BR> <BR>My Christian students are wrestling intellectually and emotionally with another perspective. They read popularizers of science who tell them that the Bible offers a "pre-scientific" view of the world, and question its veracity; they see some of these same persons dismiss the Bible as of no value in the light of the sure and certain knowledge that science provides. Also, in their high school and even some college science courses, they are often given the impression, whether intended or not, that former scientific theories and notions have been replaced simply because they were wrong, and they are not taught to give outmoded theories the respect they deserve. One of my tasks is to help them recognize the fallacies of these perspectives, understand what the scientific enterprise really consists of, and realize that they may value and honor the world view of the ancient Hebrews without thinking either that they must prove that modern scientific concepts are already in the Bible or that they must reject certain paradigms of mainstream science today in order to be true to God and to God's Word. <BR> <BR>Before my students examine creation texts in the Bible, we explore the characteristics of scientific theories, models and paradigms, and note their similarities and differences with theological models and paradigms. I hope that they will grasp the notion that all interpretations of scientific data are theory- laden and historically contextual. Then, when we look at Scripture, I try to help them recognize that the same is true of the ancient bipartite and tripartite cosmological models implicit in the texts of Genesis, Isaiah, Job, the Psalms, and other books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.69 Yet, while these cosmologies may be quite different from and superseded by today's, they are no less worthy of understanding and respect. More importantly, I hope that my students will come to see that "creation" in the Bible really belongs to the realm of theology, not science, that how the biblical writers interpreted what we call scientific data is no more timelessly true (nor do I believe that God would expect anyone to think it so) than the interpretations of today's scientific community, that what Scripture reveals first and finally is God's relationship to the creation, that it is the revelation of creation (both as divine action and as the universe brought into being) that remains timelessly true, however our theological understanding of that revelation may change over time. <BR> <BR>The theological truths about creation which Scripture proclaims are not dependent upon the cosmological models in which they are set. In fact, the biblical writers offer believers a valuable lesson for interpreting the doctrine of creation: one can take whatever is the current cosmological model and use it to understand more deeply and clearly God's relationship to the creation. That is what Second Isaiah, the author of Job, and the writer(s) of Genesis 1 did: they conveyed revelations about creation using the "standard model" of the cosmos they shared with their Semitic neighbors, while at the same time challenging and rejecting their theogonies and theologies. And we can do the same. <BR> <BR>Creationist Paul Humber, less certain that Isa. 40:22a and Job 26:7 refer to a spherical earth, suggests that his colleagues are perhaps "forcing too much on Scripture." Rather, he wrote: "... our Lord's sovereignty over all was and is the primary focus."70 This is precisely what I hope my students will come to realize. They do not have to choose between modern science and the Bible. They do not have to find modern scientific knowledge in the Bible in order to keep on believing in it. They can have it both ways. <BR> <BR>Concluding Scientific Postscript <BR> <BR>As we shared our views on reading the Bible in the light of modern scientific knowledge, Bob Suder asked: <BR> <BR>"What can the ancient Israelites teach us about their world view that we might not see otherwise? What can they tell us that we never would have dreamed of? How can their cosmogony inform our cosmology?" <BR> <BR>I looked down at the text of Isa. 40:22b at that moment and said: <BR> <BR>"I've often wondered what the prophet meant by the 'curtain' of the heavens." <BR> <BR>"You've been to the Middle East, haven't you?" <BR> <BR>"Yes, in June of 1982, I went to Israel and Egypt on the Berea College Alumni Tour." <BR> <BR>"Did you see the curtain when you were there?" <BR> <BR>"No, did you?" <BR> <BR>Bob, who had been a surveyor and excavator at archeological sites in Israel and Jordan for several seasons, answered: <BR> <BR>"Yes, many times, especially on the Madaba Plains and the region of ancient Moab. It was visible at other places but not so pronounced. The last time I flew out of Amman, I saw it again as our plane taxied on the tarmac. I looked out the window and saw that a huge cloud of desert dust had filled the skies and stretched across the horizon. In its 'folds' it looked like a curtain or a tent from the inside. It is one of the memories of the Near East that seems to summarize the whole experience." <BR> <BR>Bob reminds us all of an important fact about the cosmology of our spiritual ancestors. We shall appreciate their world view best when we are able to put ourselves in their place. The prophet and the poet, and all this company that the Holy Spirit inspired--we shall do them justice when we learn to see the universe through their eyes instead of our own. And, we shall do them justice whenever we remind ourselves that theirs are eyes not only of sight but also of faith.71 <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html" target=_top>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneide r.html</a>
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">creation" in the Bible really belongs to the realm of theology, not science,</font></b> <BR> <BR>This is exactly what John, Neal and I have been repeatedly saying: The Bible gives the theology of the Hebrew, and later Christian writers, and was never intended to explain things scientifically. For those who try, it defies all logic and is dismissed by science.
Offline
Creation is not retestable, and is by a transcendant God. You guys still want evolution instead of the Bible Creation. The statement is not negating the creation story, just saying, it can't be put in a "test tube" to analyse on an evolutionary basis, it has a special creation start. THAT I KNOW IS NOT WHAT YOU, JOHN AND NEAL ARE SAYING!!!! <BR> <BR>Nor do I believe this is what you guys are saying, you were just extracting what you wanted, not his true meaning: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>that what Scripture reveals first and finally is God's relationship to the creation, that it is the revelation of creation (both as divine action and as the universe brought into being) that remains timelessly true, however our theological understanding of that revelation may change over time. <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on March 27, 2009)
Offline