| |
|
home | board | compass
| prayer | eCard |
01/15/2003 Entry: "Taking the Bible seriously"
Dean @ blogs4God links to this article from the "Institute for Creation Research" and asks "Does science conflict with the Bible?" Strangely, I gave a talk in a local church tonight which included this very subject.My answer is, no it doesn't. The Bible isn't about science and tells us no useful scientific information about the origins of the universe. This is what I wrote on March 18th last year:
What they offer [the opening chapters of Genesis] is theology, a statement of the relationship between God, humanity and creation. I'm not saying that Genesis is not true, but it is not interested in cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics or biochemistry. Think of the way that different maps can be used to chart the same territory, but offer different information according to the map's purpose. Different insights into the same truth. That, for me, is something of the relationship between the Bible and science. Don't try to find your way on the London Underground using a street map.I'll stick by that. I'm amazed that people continue to flog this dead horse of a 6 day creation, claiming to be standing up for scriptural truth. I realise that I'm on the verge of ranting, but really...If you truly want to take the Bible seriously, if you're prepared to let it challenge and change you, then you have to read what it actually says. It's only the first chapter of Genesis that speaks of the week of creation. The second chapter gives quite a different story, told in a different way, with the creation occuring in quite a different order. If the first chapter is a scientifically accurate account, then the second cannot be. No amount of hedging, fudging or blustering can get around it.Just for clarity, Genesis 1 has:"In the beginning" - light-day/night - sky- land - grass & plants - sun etc - fish - birds - animals - human beings - restBy contrast, Genesis 2 goesAdam - garden - plants - animals & birds - womanThere really is no need to confuse our young people with this old chestnut any longer. I'm not saying that science has all the answers. The essence of science is an uncompleted journey. But to try to claim that the Bible is any basis for teaching science is preposterous, at least as dangerous to faith as it is to science and ultimately flawed because it refuses to allow the Bible to speak for itself.
Replies:
Pen, how much scripture do you allow to not be perfect? How much scripture do you allow yourself to accept as wrong?
2 Timothy 3:16 reads (NASB) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. It says "all" scripture, not just part of it.
I agree that we must not worship the Bible, but to disagree with that which is "God-breathed" (to use the NIV translation of this verse) is in effect to disagree with God.
I also agree that the Word is less important than a personal relationship with God. You cannot be saved by reading the Bible, to be sure. But the Bible is one of the best ways to learn about God and what He has intended for us in our lives.
I am certainly fundamental and certainly conservative. But my view is a simple one - the Bible is accurate, without mistake, and true. Every passage. Every word. If I disagree with something I read in the Bible, it is me that is wrong, not the Bible. Thanks for commenting back.
Posted by Gary Petersen @ 01/18/2003 01:53 PM CST
Gary... my, my, my... a whole lot of bibliolatry in that statement.
I try to remind myself each day that I don't need perfection in the written word... what I do need is to hang on to grace provided by God incarnate in Jesus Christ, who lived, died and was resurrected on the third day.
Anytime I encounter an overly fundamentalist view (And if you abandon or ignore one part, even a single verse, of Scripture, you are as much as abandoning or ignoring all of Scripture.) OR an overly academic view (see John Dominic Crossan's writings) I remember that the God I worship is in relationship with me .. and I learn about God through the Bible... not by worshipping the Bible.
Posted by Pen @ 01/16/2003 02:19 PM CST
Thanks for the extensive reply Gary, but I disagree with you at almost every point. The plain truth, the "face value" reading of the text is that Genesis 1 -2:4 and Gen 2:4b-25 put the creation in a different order. That's what it says - it isn't my fault! The only way to make the two accounts fit together is to pull "sleight of hand" tricks like saying that 2:18-20 refers to the order in which Adam met the animals, not when God made them. But it really won't do. You can't say you take the Bible seriously on the one hand, and then twist what it says on the other.Thanks for the links. I don't have time to go through them in detail today, though I will at some point.It just isn't true that recognising the difference between Gen 1 & 2 leaves you with no options other than "Scripture is nothing more than a fable or old wive's tale", but it does mean (for me) that a fundamentalist reading is ruled out by the Bible itself.No doubt we'll be returning to this one...
Posted by Richard @ 01/16/2003 08:57 AM CST
It seems like you're saying that Genesis 1 conflicts with Genesis 2. If this is what you're saying, then you are also saying that one or the other is wrong. And if you abandon or ignore one part, even a single verse, of Scripture, you are as much as abandoning or ignoring all of Scripture.
Science is the study of what you can see in the present and the use of tests to prove a hypothesis. Trying to apply science to the literal creation of the world is an impossible task, as there is no way to test a hypothesis and know that you can apply the results of that test to the days of creation. Most modern-day scientists start from the assumption that God either doesn't exist or at least wasn't involved in the creation of the world. Following that assumption, there are no witnesses to creation nor any account of it from which information can be drawn.
As a scientist, you're stuck guessing what might have happened with no ability to know for certain. Or, put another way, as a scientist, you're stuck with only the faith of your results to rely upon.
The Bible is not a scientific text. It is, however, the account of the One upon which all of science is founded, God. It is the record of the only witness to creation, God Himself. That is not something that can be proven, inasmuch as the scientific process is used in an attempt to prove a hypothesis. Or, put another way, you're stuck with only the faith in God to draw upon.
Much of this debate boils down to this. Which foundation do you wish to pur your faith upon?
Do you start with the inspired Word of God in the Bible and recognize that as the framework that guides your analysis of what you can see and touch and measure in the present day?
Or do you start with the idea that God wasn't involved and use as your framework for analysis a theory that man created?
Either way, faith is involved and you must put your faith in someone.
You cannot have it both ways, though. Either you accept that all of Scripture is accurate, correct, and the inspired Word of God or you hold to the belief that Scripture is nothing more than a fable or old wive's tale - good words to live by perhaps, but not anything upon which true science can be founded.
Here are a few resources that take the point that there is no conflict between Genesis 1 and 2.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n4_name.asp
God bless. Gary
Posted by Gary Petersen @ 01/16/2003 05:19 AM CST
Thank you for saying that. I hope you get a better response thanI did when I said much the same thing to a group of my husband's friends. Shalomjan
Posted by Jan @ 01/16/2003 03:22 AM CST
Bravo! Something that needs to be said, again and again. Until, hopefully, even the dead horses understand...
Posted by Rick O'Donnell @ 01/16/2003 02:52 AM CST
Well said. I'll get out of your way while the dead horses pile up. Blog on!
Posted by Bene Diction @ 01/16/2003 12:17 AM CST
Never mind confuse our young people, what about us 'not so young'.
Posted by John @ 01/15/2003 11:59 PM CST
