Apologies, @T_aquaticus, I had to go…
Before I consider one part of the Bible to be false (or, at least, semi-parabolic), I need support for that from other areas of scripture. There is kind of a new thread going on for this now as well…
Why wouldn’t you also consider the creation since you believe God had as much a hand in creating the world around us as he did in creating the Bible? Why exclude one over the other?
1 Like
@T_aquaticus
The Bible is God’s testimony to us in plain words. It is harder to misinterpret the Bible than it is to misinterpret “nature.” All of our theology (and the history of our theology) is rolled up in the Bible, so if something is to be no longer considered reliable, it must be from somewhere else in scripture. For instance, many chapters of the OT are spend outlining the Old Testament (Old Covenant) which was fulfilled by Christ (in the New Testament in His blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins). Some things could be safely and easily reinterpreted so as to fit with science, but I doubt that the first 11 chapters of Genesis fit into this category.
That’s all beside the point. These big viruses have elaborate genomes encoding protein networks bigger than things that are “alive.” What matters is not whether anyone thinks the viruses are “alive.” What matters is that they are viruses that are complex, bringing far more biological capacity than the caricature of a little piece of mobile DNA/RNA shed by a cell. It means that the term “virus” can denote something big and complex and potent.
I think that some precursors to cellular life were likely things that resemble viruses, yes. But I have a lot of interest and affinity for the “metabolism first” stance, and I’m not sure how/if virus-like replicators fit into that kind of scenario. I do think the RNA World is a near certainty, so that’s probably why I think that precellular virus-like replicators make sense.
2 Likes
The firmament separating the waters is from the first 11 chapters of Genesis. How do you interpret it, Jonathan? Are you a geocentrist?
1 Like
I find the metabolism first notion interesting too.
I think it’s important to note that the RNA World hypothesis isn’t necessarily abiogenesis, but merely means (to me, anyway) that very early on, ribozymes proceeded protein enzymes and most importantly, their synthesis.
1 Like
That’s highly debatable. Where do you get that the Bible is God’s testimony in plain words? What is that belief based on? It seems to me that when it comes to reading a language nobody speaks anymore or understanding a culture nobody has anymore, that is significantly harder and less straightforward than, say, counting the annual layers on ice varves and seeing there are more than 50,000. I don’t see how all this interpretation is involved when it comes to counting.
4 Likes
I disagree strongly… Over time the scientific method produces tremendously consistent interpretations of the evidence found in nature. That is why tremendous consensus between science textbooks from different authors and different publishers is so common—but consensus is not necessarily as common among thousands of Christian denominations nor within even many fundamentalist Bible commentaries where one can read for one “problem verse” after another the ubiquitous “The two/three/four most common interpretations of this verse are as follows . . . .”
I would say without hesitation that it is far harder to misinterpret nature than to misinterpret the Bible! I would encourage you to take a few Hebrew exegesis courses or perhaps read a book about translation dynamics. Indeed, Genesis 1-11 includes some of the most disputed passages in the Bible. (Example: “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men”. How did you determine the “plain meaning” of the words of Genesis 6:1-8?)
When reading an English Bible translation one MIGHT think that hermeneutics is a simple matter—but only because scholars have slaved over the many difficulties and ambiguities and variant manuscripts and argued for many years over which English rendering is best. Of course, even when their translation work is finished, the hard task of interpretation has only begun. Or do you think that all readers of the NIV Bible (for example) interpret the Bible’s words exactly the same?
I sure spent a lot of years sitting in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic classes trying to figure out those “plain words”. Are you sure that we are talking about the same Bible?
Agreed. I think you will find that a lot of us in this forum doubt that Genesis 1-11 should be “reinterpreted so as to fit with science.” Indeed, that is the last thing I would recommend doing. (Many here eschew concordism.) Genesis is not a book of science. It is ancient literature which relates God to his creation and sets the stage for our understanding God’s plan for those made in his image.
7 Likes
That line of reasoning always gets me. The fact is, Jesus and his apostles did not advocate or follow the plain, literal interpretation of Scripture.
The Pharisees studied the Scriptures intensely, yet they entirely misunderstood the mission and message of Jesus. Why? Were they unable to understand the Hebrew Scriptures, written in the same “plain words” that today’s Christians also read? If you look closely at the gospels, it’s easy to understand why the Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah: They focused only on those prophecies of a Davidic King, which they took literally. They did not recognize John the Baptist because they were expecting a literal Elijah. They did not recognize the Christ because they were expecting a literal, political deliverance from their literal, political enemies. Jesus did not literally sit on David’s throne and rule forever. By the Pharisees strictly literal reading of the prophets, Jesus could not be the Christ.
Second, we should ask ourselves: What was the hermeneutic of Jesus? Was it a literal, plain reading, or something else? If we follow the storyline of the gospels, Jesus is constantly upbraiding his disciples for failing to understand. And what is the common thread of their misunderstandings? Without fail, the situations when the disciples and the crowds misunderstand Jesus occur when they take him literally and, thus, miss his greater meaning, which is metaphorical. Examples:
Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?" (Mark 4:13)
“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. (Matt. 15:13-16)
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? … How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?" (Matt. 16:6-11).
Virtually all of Jesus’ teaching relies on symbolism and metaphor, and he constantly upbraids his disciples for their slowness to understand his metaphors, yet his present-day disciples insist we should follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees and adopt a literal reading. Isaiah’s words are still true:
He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
6 Likes
Funny thing is, by insisting on a literal reading of Scripture, the Pharisees and the Sadducees reduced it to absurdity in Jesus’s time. Just as happens today.
Mark 7:13: “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
2 Corinthians 3:6: “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
2 Likes
Those are two rather large assumptions, neither of which seems to be justified. Anyway, I thank you for answering those questions and clarifying your position.
At the risk of you holding my hand as you lead me to the slaughter, and yet another “gotcha moment” … I’ll bite…
Why can’t a “bunch of replicating RNAs survive outside cells in the world today?”
Virtually every cell and organism excretes ribonuclease (RNase).
Even better, RNase is one of the few really stable enzymes. You can boil it and it renatures with full activity–boiling the cell extract is actually the first step in RNase purification. AFAIK, there’s really no other enzyme that’s more stable.
Working with RNA in the lab is 10x harder than working with DNA because of this. You can pick up a DNA solution off the lab floor, but even a fleck of dead skin from your face or scalp has sufficient RNase to destroy your tube of RNA almost instantly.
It therefore makes perfect sense for the first cellular RNA-based life to have evolved incredibly stable RNase to wipe out competing noncellular life. So such life could begin today–every minute–but be immediately wiped out.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.