In my opinion science is not compatible with everything as you seem to say.
Namely good science is not compatible with bad thinking. You say that science is following the method which is true, but the method is important to avoid bad thinking. Unfortunately scientists do not follow the scientific method so some “facts” which are considered scientific are not.
My favorite example of this is Darwin’s understanding of Natural Selection which is based on Survival of the Fittest. Sadly this “science” has not been verified and it is not true.
Theology is a science. It is a discipline the name of which ends in “ology” after Logos, which is a definition of Jesus Christ Who is the Word (Logos) of God. John 1:1 Christianity is compatible with the scientific method in that it deals with facts, although these facts are theological facts, not physical facts.
What the scientific method is not compatible with is thinking that that is based on speculation and not on logic and established facts.
You have to define “bad thinking.” If “bad thinking” means you are incapable of following the scientific method (or refuse to do so) then I agree. If bad thinking means something else, then I probably disagree.
You did a nice job. However, (and I think this is a big one) you did not address the difference between the role the Bible plays versus the Scientific Method.
So many discussion here fail to recognize the specific roles played between General and Special Revelation. Science is definitely General, and the Bible, Special.
Here is a chart I made for my own Genesis Bible study coming up in a few weeks.
Change the Header to John 3:1-23, which is Nicodemus’ conversation with Yeshua Jesus. Yeshua gives him a lesson on Cosmology. The Seen and Unseen reflect the two camps of General and Special Revelation.
The Who, What, When and Where all apply to both realms.
The Why on the Physical side (General Revelation) only applies to things with in it purview, the physical cosmos and its processes.
The Why on the Special revelation side explains both the existence of the Physical, but the reason for its existence.
The How for the physical side only applies to that side.
Likewise the Bible provides all the answers necessary (not exhaustive) for HOW the spiritual side works: “If you believe with your heart, and speak with you mouth, you shall be saved” and so forth. It explains HOW of Yeshua Jesus’ physical death occurred (crucifixion) bu How it expiated sin from the world (propitiation).
So “Render unto Ceasear…” means also “Render unto General Revelation the things that are its, and to Special Revelation (Elohim God) the things that are his.”
This is how the entire Cosmos works.
If you really think this through and adopt this understanding, suddenly much of the discussion here becomes more of an exercise in learning rather than debate.
Duh! I missed seeing that! My abject apologies! I admit I didn’t review it as thoroughly as I should have! (bowing and scraping).
I like your work!
Take a look at my newly made website which I have just put up over the last few days. Has a bit of my material I am working on for an advanced Bible Study.
I think it is important to observe the scientific method for science and the rules for studying scripture to analyze the Bible:
All scripture must be interpreted in the context of all other scripture
There are different rules for different dispensations (e.g. the garden, law and grace)
You need to know to whom the content is being addressed
This presentation seems to be all over the place (not following scientific method or the rules for studying the Bible) and mixing and matching science and the Bible. I could not follow a logic argument through the presentation that arrives at the conclusion.
I think the limitations of your three points are obvious.
If you only interpret scripture in the context of other scripture, then you are missing the
context of nature, which is a timeless testimony.
The more realistic set of points would be:
[1] In the absence of demonstrated findings in nature, scripture can be interpreted by other scripture.
[2] When demonstrated findings in nature conflict with human interpretation of scripture, the interpretation of scripture requires modification to be consistent with the demonstrated findings of nature.
[3] Those who reject point [2] will never know what is really true, vs. what is just “really believed”.
Truth is revealed through nature.
Truth is revealed through Scripture.
Where there is conflict, 99% of the time it is our interpretation of scripture that is the issue, as you have said. There are times (much more rare) when our interpretation of the world around us is incorrect. An example is the belief that since there was no archeological evidence for the existence of King David, he was therefore a mythological figure, which now has proven to be false.
We must be aware on both sides of the argument.
As I like to point out, Scientists are not Stupid! They are often fallen! Hence incorrect assessment of the WHY.
I would say that our interpretation of WHY the world around us is incorrect is the point. As you say, our observations of the HOW may be 99% sure (after revisions and rework using Scientific Methodology).
It’s all a matter of perspective. For example, the discipline of Archaeology is far less comprehensive and [far more] bumpy than the discipline of Physics or Geology. So when we can develop a pretty solid understanding of how our Sun functions, we can be pretty sure that this is the same for suns millions of light years from us.
As for the example of King David, you don’t actually cite how you “mean” that the ‘myth of a myth’ is false:
I would think there are pretty high odds there was someone of importance named David in the history of Canaan. But was he based in Jerusalem? Was he based in Jerusalem during the time suggested by the Bible? When exactly would that have been?
In the article below, we read about an apparently famous king, King Mesha of Moab, who left a very detailed text on a stele. “Mesha” is virtually the same name as the Jewish name of “Moshe” - - the Hebrew pronunciation of Moses. There are many things similar between Mesha and Moshe… and many things that are different. Mesha lived in the mid 800’s BCE. Moshe had to have lived after 1130 BCE, or there wouldnt’ have been any Philistines to have influenced the path of his Exodus.
But both Mesha/Moshe “invaded” Canaan from the Moab side of Jordan. Both had strong religious underpinnings for what they were doing. Interestingly, Moshe (Moses) never actually lived in Canaan, right?
Interesting… but different.
King David was supposed to have united 12 tribes under his kingship at Jerusalem. But from the Amarna texts we learn that Jerusalem was pretty much just a small city state for centuries… until the Assyrians conquered the northern territory of Israel, and created a flood of refugees to the south ! Assyria doesn’t comment on “Yaudi” (i.e., Judah) until the mid 700’s BCE. Before this time, when an Egyptian Pharaoh sent his troops into the region, he mentions the cities he conquered, not the kingdom of Judah.
When this David has a son, Solomon (the Hebrew name Shlomo, seems to be a pun on Ur-SLM, City of Shlomo), rules 12 tribes … but then 10 tribes rebel after the death of Solomon (Shlomo). One of the ten tribes is south of Judah, the tribal region of Simeon.
Obviously… something is wrong with the history here…
I have taken a stab at representing this graphically.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truth. I represented truth with the orange line.
Given an infinite amount of time, science is continually discovering and learning more and will eventually asymptotically approach the truth and is represented by the gray line
Our interpretation of the Bible is the wildcard and it represented by the yellow line, which, even given an infinite amount of time may not ever get completely to the truth.
I cannot argue against Jesus Christ being the Way, the Truth and the Life. No matter what we agree or disagree in terms of the details of the alignment of science and faith, we must always keep Christ in the center.
I would ask you to consider that during Jesus’ human life on earth, he repeatedly spoke out against the “traditions” of the religious leaders of the time, but never spoke out against scripture that existed at that time. In fact, He quoted and referenced scripture continually. I take this as an endorsement of the canon of scripture that existed at this time and evidence that the Old Testament is the Word of God.
Does it count as “speaking out against scripture” to rewrite it completely? For example: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-39)
“You have heard it said” was not referring to tradition only – it was referring to scripture, as Jesus directly quotes Exodus. (I do believe the OT is inspired, but simply that Jesus supersedes it).
Jesus first confirms the Old Testament content and then provides an updated view based on the “age of Grace”. Jesus did not say the original scripture said to turn the other cheek, but man changed it to say “an eye for an eye”. He confirmed what the original scripture was.
Jesus made it clear in Matthew 19:8 that the Law specific to divorce was written the way it was because of the hardness of our heart, and then he provided how divorce should be handled in the age of Grace. He does the same for murder and adultery in Matthew 5, the sermon on the mount. Even though the Law was limited, no man could keep it. This is even more apparent as the expectations are increased in the age of Grace. In no case does he say the language in the Old Testament is incorrect, he confirms it to be accurate.
I’m not sure what you mean here – are you saying that humans changed scripture to say “an eye for an eye”? In other words, are you saying that
Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 are not inspired? “An eye for an eye” is straight from scripture in multiple places and Jesus completely rewrites it.
Jesus called human being to go beyond the old Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant based on faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is the Logos the eternal Word of God.
In the original conversation, I stated that if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is the truth.
Mr. Sawtelle replied
I was making the point that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus often quoted from the Old testament, verifying its content to be accurate in scripture. The point I was trying to make is that if the Truth is quoting from the Old Testament, then the Old testament must also be the truth.
Jesus, as Mr. Sawtelle eloquently stated, called us to a higher plane in the Age of Grace. This direction superseded direction given in the Old Testament under the Age of Law. This does not mean that the Old Testament is not the truth or any less of the Word of God, it is just not directed for us in the Age of Grace to follow.
Paul stated that all these things were given to us for example and admonition. The Old Testament still has a great deal of value.
So if I’m understanding you right, you mean that Jesus upholds the truth and validity of the Old Testament as a whole, while still taking the liberty to override parts of it since he is the actual Truth?
If so, I suppose that makes sense, though I’m not sure I follow when you say
Are you implying that any document Jesus quotes from is automatically rendered truth? What if he quotes from other rabbinical writings that are not considered scripture?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
