It has been a great pleasure discussing this with everyone here, and what a privilege it is to have discourse with folks with your experience!
I can’t imagine how many incredible things you’ve seen in your years at the American Chemical Society and in studying these various disciplines. I hesitate to disagree, as the Bible says.… “…Days should speak…”
But I’ll just say… that very phrase was written thousands of years ago. It is still relevant today. Interpretation and understanding of the Bible grows, but the very words themselves are just as relevant today as they were the day they were written. No update needed.
Maybe I should reiterate that the Bible is not the only truth, it is not comprehensive truth, rather it is authoritative truth. All truth doesn’t come from the Bible, but all truth bows to the Bible. Truth may live alongside it, but not above it.
Science will change if we are here thousands more years, but the Bible need not change. It has already been here thousands of years. Our understanding of it even has undergone very little change, compared to the changes in science. If I had to change the Bible every time science changed, I would need to quit my day job to keep up. It’s been said that the greatest scientists live by killing those who went before them. Not so with the Bible. It is passed on to faithful men who may pass it to others. I read and understand the words of the apostles from thousands of years ago, and they strike my heart with greater urgency and conviction than the words of any modern text.
Christ’s message is every bit equally relevant today as it was when it was first uttered thousands of years ago. “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father, but by me.”
As a matter of fact, I have seen that the Bible does not need to catch up with the day, but the modern day needs to run to catch up with the Bible.
Well, David was a geocentrist - of course he was. So was everyone else back then. Also, the main geocentrism texts are not in the Psalms - they are in Joshua and Ecclesiastes, and they were emphatically not considered “metaphorical”. You also are not deriving heliocentrism from the Bible - that cannot be done - you’re trying to explain how the Bible fits with heliocentrism, because science has convinced you that heliocentrism is correct.
I know enough history here to say that a “metaphorical” approach was emphatically not accepted back in the day when these issues were under scrutiny. It’s all fine and well to say that you just take those scriptures as metaphor now, but that was rank heresy in 1611. Consider what Bellarmine had to say about Galileo:
[quote]
… as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. [/quote]
I think you need to walk a mile, or two, in their shoes before you breezily brush it all off as no big deal. Also, be open to the possibility that generations to come will look back at us with the same ease that we look back on them. (Here’s hoping).
When I say David was not a geocentrist, I don’t mean to say what he personally did or did not believe about the movement of the sun. I am saying that David, in the Psalms, was not making a claim on the actual movement of the sun. He was making a metaphor. “David was not a geocentrist” was shorthand for “the Psalm does not claim geocentricity.” I’m using the man’s name in substitute for his work. David surely believed all kinds of things about nature that were not true, which had not been revealed to him in the Bible, because, as I said, the Bible does not contain comprehensive truth, it contains authoritative truth.
To bring this sidebar back into the original discussion, I’d say that when talking to a conservative Christian, you would be better not to make a claim on what the Bible does or does not teach (when it is not clear), but would do better to say that the Bible leaves room for outside observation on this particular topic. Show where there is room. We do this in all kinds of disciplines. What does the Bible teach about algebra? Nothing that I have seen. What does it teach about chemicals? Nothing specifically. Models of cell division are noticeably absent. Origins in Genesis? There is only a framework, nothing very specific. There is much room for outside observation.
I"ll give you a real life example. Hugh Ross claims that the Bible teaches the expansion of the universe, because of some verses about the Lord “stretching out the heavens.” Well, I think that interpretation itself is a “stretch.”
I’m NOT saying that the Bible teaches steady-state or that it teaches expansion, I’m saying that the Bible is not clear on either. It doesn’t teach that topic. No need to force the issue.
This speaks to one of my bottom line message to BioLogos: don’t tell conservative Christians that the Bible is wrong on a matter, tell them it is silent. Don’t tell me the Bible is wrong on heliocentricity, it is silent.
Everyone wants to claim the authority of the Bible in their particular discipline. Politicians do it all the time. They stretch to do so. We should not.
I haven’t said that the Bible is “wrong” on heliocentricity. I’m just making the point that we all have adjusted our views on what was previously 1600 years of uniform biblical interpretation because of science. If science causes us to revisit our interpretations, I see that as a good thing.
The quotation from John’s gospsel that you use is a prime example of the problem I have with biblical hermeneutics and have addressed in previous posts. In one of them (the Miracle of the Panel truck) I related how that quote prevented a colleague of mine from accepting Christianity because it meant that his parents and earlier ancestors were NOT saved (i.e. were burning in Hell). I believe the odds are greatly in favor that the authors of John’s gospel could not agree on what Christ actually said, and the one who remembered it correctly entered the quotation as John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up on the last day.” That is similar wording, but an altogether different message. As far as I can see, no amount of exegesis can cover up the fact that ONE of the quotations is ERRONEOUS. While the Bible may be inspired by God, it is fallible humans who first decide what it should consist of and how ‘canonical’ versions are later translated. I have no doubt that a great deal of mischief has resulted from human frailty in this regard. On the other hand, perhaps I am just getting too old and crotchety.
Al Leo
You use the word “change” here as unfavorable in the case of science but “need not change” as favorable to the Bible and the Faith it supports. I think a good case can be made for any “change” made in science over the past 200 years has brought us closer to the Truth (whatever that may turn out to be). Are you so sure that the Bible, as made canonical some 1600 years ago, could not be improved by any change?
Al Leo
Fair enough! Rereading my words, I might have been clearer (for purposes of this discussion) if I had inserted “in various details” after “wrong;” my point wasn’t to try to attack it as a whole! But it’s still very true that it’s an enormous topic to try to address thoroughly, and of debatable relevance to the question of Christian acceptance of evolution. I was merely wondering about something I have never understood clearly, and figured it was worth asking.
Reading the quotes you give, I’ll have to look up more context a little bit later when I have more time; but it’s enough for a jumping-off point, at least, thanks!
I do appreciate your last point in another reply, about being careful not to claim the authority of the Bible in, for example, politics, too much!
We have a very different view of the Bible that is causing some distance between us.
The position I start from is that the Bible is the perfect, inspired and complete words of God. Science makes no such claim, of course. So if that were true… if the Bible were actually the perfect and preserved words of God, it would be becoming and good for it to never change. And since science is the work of humans, it would be most becoming for it to change over time. Our beginning position being so different is what is causing our conclusions to be so far apart.
I certainly agree with you here. But when I once posted in overly emphatic terms that the Bible’s description of the firmament supporting a huge ocean of water above the Earth was clearly erroneous - - many a fine BioLogos supporter flipped out!
They were quite insistent that it was not a case of the Bible being wrong, but that it was figurative language, or some such thing.
And then the same thing happened when I insisted that the Bible was morally wrong about the practice of slavery (in both books). You would think I had lit their dog on fire !!!
So we should not be surprised that the idea that conservative Christians would immediately reject anything we say if we said that the Bible was wrong. This is the world as they have constructed it.
Just curious - in 20 minutes, these believers went from YEC to Evolutionary Creationists? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not trying to say you’re lying!!! I’m just in complete disbelief.
To me, it sounds like you got them to relax a little on the idea of science not being totally wrong about stuff but not necessarily on the side of Biologos and the like.
Ha, no, I’m not saying I made them experts in evolution in 20 minutes. Nor did I get them to accept every tenant of BioLogos.
But they did a whole lot more than “relax a little on the idea of science not being totally wrong.” They went from believing the earth was somehow 6,000 years old, to discarding that belief and becoming a fresh, open and available new student of accepted modern science.
They could sit and watch a lecture from Dawkins on the science part of evolutionary biology with no objections, (of course only objecting when he insists that there is no God and God had nothing to do with anything).
Yes, completely converted in 15-20 minutes for each conversation. Here’s how I see that it was possible:
YECs carry an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance. They have paid a lot of attention to evolutionary and geological evidence, and it has caused them a lot of personal doubts. They cling to people like Ken Ham as a “last best hope” or line of defense against faithlessness, but they aren’t dumb, they see the holes in his arguments. They just overlook them blindly, by faith.
Because of this, they are ripe for conversion, but only under certain circumstances. They would LOVE to be able to accept the clear evidence of evolution and the age of the earth, but they see no way of doing so without throwing out their entire theological and hermeneutical underpinnings that are at the foundation of their faith. So they do not. This group is under great tension.
What I did was show them a way to make complete room for modern science, while also keeping completely their entire theological framework. I just showed them that it wasn’t an either/or decision, that there was a third option. When they saw this, it was very much a breakthrough, an ‘aha’ moment.
Did you happen to read (buried somewhere here) when I mentioned the illustration of Iwo Jima? It was a huge battle with great loss on both sides, because the US attacked Japan head on, in a place where they were most entrenched. Many have argued that it was unnecessary. The US could have just gone around Iwo Jima altogether.
The reason you find YECs so difficult to deal with and impossible to convert is because you are confronting them head on in the area they are most entrenched. You are requiring them to change their very core beliefs and hermeneutics, which form the foundation of their theology.
By the way, I’m not claiming any kind of personal brilliance here. Remember that I myself have been a creationist for 20 years. I have just been studying both sides for all that time, unable to square them, but making progress. The progress led to more tension, with both sides becoming more and more entrenched. Then recently I personally had a breakthrough which made all the pieces fit into place beautifully. The modern science and the conservative Christian hermeneutic slid in place nicely right beside each other.
I am coming from personal experience here. I was a YEC for millions and millions of years and it took me a VERY long time to come to grips with EC. I can remember having conversations with OECs and being skeptical. They gave me the “went around” as well and it didn’t stick with me. I actually had a kind of “come to faith” moment where I finally broke down and decided that maybe I was okay with EC and then I heard an interview with Francis Collins on NPR that blew me away. I remember walking around the lobby of my workplace and feeling God lift the weight of “this is a salvation issue” off my shoulders. I felt like I had been born again, all over again!
So, forgive me if I seem skeptical of someone who is against evolution and 20 minutes later they can stomach Dawkins.
I’m glad that they have you to make it so clear for them! I would have loved that in my younger days.
I’m actually taking that very cautiously, I have not told anyone yet but strangers and a couple close family members, hence the anonymous username.
One of the reasons I’m here is to do some preliminary fleshing out of ideas. My next step is to write a thesis on the subject, and present it for defense. I am approaching it from a standpoint that does not affect any doctrine or hermeneutic at all, so I’m praying for minimal blowback.
The interesting thing is that I think the denominational leadership and the laypeople who are most ardent Bible studiers will accept my approach most readily. I’m most afraid of causing division with the homeschool parent-types who do not study their Bible or understand why they believe what they believe, they simply feel very insecure and threatened by the world. I think this group would push for my ousting without even reading the thesis.
and it took me a VERY long time to come to grips with EC. I can remember having conversations with OECs and being skeptical. They gave me the “went around” as well and it didn’t stick with me. I actually had a kind of “come to faith” moment where I finally broke down and decided that maybe I was okay with EC and then I heard an interview with Francis Collins on NPR that blew me away. I remember walking around the lobby of my workplace and feeling God lift the weight of “this is a salvation issue” off my shoulders. I felt like I had been born again, all over again!
.