Death Before Adam

[Pastorbps]

I don't buy into the notion that faith is opposed to what I can see.

But when they are opposed, faith says, "I believe the Word of God." Which do we do? Do we reconcile the Bible with our observations or our observations with the Word of God?

I try to reconcile what I see with how I interpret the Bible.

I try to interpret what I see with what I read in the Bible.

Sometimes our interpretation can be informed by scientific discoveries.

Sometimes scientific discoveries can be informed by what the Bible says.

The question is whether we are open to considering the possibility that our interpretation is flawed.

The question is whether we are open to considering the possibility science's interpretation is flawed based upon what the Bible says.

Its all about where you start.

[TW]

Its all about where you start.

No. It's all about truth. If the Biblical interpretation is true, science cannot refute it.


TW

[Russell Roberts]

PastorBPS,

That was an excellent point!

Your comment reflects a difference in how we understand what the Bible actually is and the nature of the literature. I perceive the Bible as a beautiful story about God and his creation. It teaches theological truths, not science. The cosmology of the ancients was quite different than our own. I have previously noted that they believed that the earth had 'foundations'. They also believed that there was a solid 'firmament' holding back the 'waters above'.

God revealed his truth to them in a language that accommodated their understanding of the universe. He made Himself known to them by speaking in a language they could understand. He seems to like to do this sort of thing. That was the point I was making about the incarnation. Hoping to defend the authority of scripture against heresy, Pentecostalism in general attempts to hold as closely as possible to a literal interpretation of scripture.

Though the motivation is commendable, I think this is a mistake. As we do, they used various modes of writing that were not intended to be literal. The books of Daniel and Revelation are prime examples. They belong to a genre of literature known as 'apocalyptic' which is very, very rich in symbolism. They also used hyperbole, exaggeration, synecdoche, circumlocution, etc. Their writing was also polemical in nature against the pagan cultures around them. Our God - YHWH - is the one true God and not Marduk or Baal or anyone else.

The creation story presented in Genesis is actually polemical against the Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. The fact that it is polemical in nature should cue one in to the fact that it might not simply be an attempt by Moses to render a literal account of creation. Beyond that, I have referred to the fact that the Hebrew word 'bara' does not refer to bringing material creation into existence but to assigning previously existing material a function.

I honestly think you would enjoy reading about the polemical thrust of the creation account. I will try to find a link. Pretty exciting stuff if you ask me.

[Russell Roberts]

Its all about where you start.

No. It's all about truth. If the Biblical interpretation is true, science cannot refute it.


TW

No, it cannot refute truth. But it can refute various interpretations of Genesis.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

I don't have time to read this article but it looks like a good starting point to learn about ancient cosmology and the polemical thrust of the creation account against the Mesopotamian creation account.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html

[Russell Roberts]

For those who might not know, cosmology is the study of the universe and man's place within it. Here is a wikipedia article about cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

The reason cosmology is important is that we need to understand how the Jews thought about the structure of the universe when Genesis was written. If we can get a grasp on how they thought we will be better equipped to understand Genesis within its historic cultural setting.

[Pastorbps]

No. It's all about truth. If the Biblical interpretation is true, science cannot refute it.

You are still judging scripture based upon what science says. Science is still your standard of truth and that is a mistake.

How do you know if science refutes a Biblical interpretation? How do you know the science is not wrong? Science is based upon observations but things are not always as they appear. If you start with an a-theistic assumption that all things happened naturally and by natural and constant laws, you are eliminating the truth that a God super-naturally created all things by miraculous means.
What you are saying without saying it is that science is the true judge of truth and the Bible must be judged by science. Whether you use "interpretation" or not, you are still judging what the Bible says on science as though science is the end all of truth.
You're right, it is all about truth but one has to decide what their source of truth is? Is it science or scripture? Yes science can support scripture but there are times the two cannot be reconciled. In such cases, the Bible is the truth.

[Pastorbps]

The creation story presented in Genesis is actually polemical against the Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths.

Nope. It is actually an inspired, factual account of events.

The fact that it is polemical in nature should cue one in to the fact that it might not simply be an attempt by Moses to render a literal account of creation.

Since it is not polemical then this is not true.

Beyond that, I have referred to the fact that the Hebrew word 'bara' does not refer to bringing material creation into existence but to assigning previously existing material a function.

Except that Heb 11:3 refutes that interpretation. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Also your interpretation, lauding science's contribution to interpretation, runs aground where science always runs aground. It fails to explain where matter came from and where it began. You could say, "God created it all" but what scripture would you use to prove that? The only other option is to say, "I don't know where matter came from."

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

The point is that when the two seem to be irreconcilable we need to try to evaluate if the fault lies in our understanding or interpretation of scripture, or with the science involved. In this case, a lot of scientists including a host of Christian scientists affirm the science.

We need not dismiss either Biblical truth or science. We should keep trying to reconcile the two. Science and religion are not opposing worldviews. God gave people the capacity to learn about Him through the created order. The scientists are merely doing what God created them to do - to learn and discover cool stuff. It helps us understand more about our awesome creator and how he did stuff.

[Pastorbps]

I'm not dismissing science. I am simply relegating it to the role of interpretee instead of interpreter. You use science like it is some mystical force all its own. Science is simply the conclusions made by the senses. We don't walk by our senses but by faith and faith comes from hearing the Word of God and not from science. Science can only be used to prove the Bible. It cannot be used to disprove what it says.
You still don't realize science is a-theistic. They don't go about to prove there is no God. They start from the assumption there is no God. "The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge." If you start with a wrong foundation, you are going to make wrong assumptions. The only "Christian" scientists are those who hold the scripture as their source of truth and make observational conclusions based upon their ability to reconcile them with scripture. I say that because in order to become a Christian (Whether you're a scientist or a pastor) you start with a promise from God (His Word) and you mix it with faith. It is not observational or naturally provable. It is a belief simply because God said so. You can't go from that to, "I believe God's Word if it is naturally provable."

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

I have really enjoyed the dialogue, but I don't think we are making any progress at this point. I have presented my point of view to the best of my ability and I believe you have done the same. I think we will just have to agree to disagree my beloved brother.

[RamboPreacher]

Pastorbps,

I don't buy into the notion that faith is opposed to what I can see. I try to reconcile what I see with how I interpret the Bible. It doesn't have to come down to a question of whether I am going to believe what I see or what I THINK the bible teaches. Sometimes our interpretation can be informed by scientific discoveries. The question is whether we are open to considering the possibility that our interpretation is flawed.

and vice versa, my brother, and vice versa as well.

[TW]

No. It's all about truth. If the Biblical interpretation is true, science cannot refute it.

You are still judging scripture based upon what science says. Science is still your standard of truth and that is a mistake.

How do you know if science refutes a Biblical interpretation? How do you know the science is not wrong? Science is based upon observations but things are not always as they appear. If you start with an a-theistic assumption that all things happened naturally and by natural and constant laws, you are eliminating the truth that a God super-naturally created all things by miraculous means.
What you are saying without saying it is that science is the true judge of truth and the Bible must be judged by science. Whether you use "interpretation" or not, you are still judging what the Bible says on science as though science is the end all of truth.
You're right, it is all about truth but one has to decide what their source of truth is? Is it science or scripture? Yes science can support scripture but there are times the two cannot be reconciled. In such cases, the Bible is the truth.

Pastorbps,
How you arrived at your conclusions of what I said proves the point that you interpret what you read through the lens of your own biased view. Not what is actually written, much less meant. I deliberately stressed the word "cannot" by making it bold, something that you left out of your post. That word is the key to my statement. I am not, again the bold emphasis, using science to judge the Bible. However, if science indicates that my, bold again, interpretation is wrong then it behooves me to re-examine my interpretation of the passages in question.


TW

[oletimer]

I'm glad that Abraham wasn't or didn't have a scientists to guide him when God was instructing him thru faith.

[ImaPK]

Faith- A young boy has somehow climbed up on the roof of a house and is afraid to climb back down. His father is standing below him telling him to jump and he will catch him. The young boy is still afraid but trusts his father's word and jumps. His father catches him and the young boy is secure in the knowledge that his father will be there when he needs him.
Now I'm not a Christian, but when I have to decide, for myself, between two points of view, I'll go with the Father because that's what my HEART tells me, not my mind. If that's wrong, so be it.