@Klax thanks for your question. It’s a hot topic right now and I wrote about it in a devotion I entitled, “A DIFFERENT GOSPEL”.
I hope you find it thought provoking.
I hope you find it thought provoking.
Thanks for letting me know!
1 Like
@Vinnie, I always enjoy researching and giving thoughtful consideration to the views of others. To help me understand your comments above, can you share specific examples of ‘science errors galore’ and historical inaccuracies within the gospels? Sometimes apparent inaccuracies are easily answered and some not so easy. Similarly, apparent scientific errors may be addressed by doing a deeper dive into the original text. I’m sure we both have much to learn so let me know specific references and I will spend some time digging in and seeing if we can find out more. I do agree with your comment about trying to get science to confirm the existence of GOD. I write about that here:
Two Cosmogonies: Darwinism and Theism (Part 1)
Exploring the false notion that these two cosmogonies represent a clash between science and religion.
Science is unable to prove that we came from nothing [or] that we were created. So the best we can do is look at the evidence and decide which construct makes the most sense. Both are theories about the origin of matter, life, mankind. And both worldviews are subject to interpretation and confirmation bias.
Appreciate your comments.
Thanks mate. About you yes. The arc of the moral universe is long. But it bends toward justice.
1 Like
For one thing, according to the Bible, the earth doesn’t move. It is covered by a hard firmament, and the sun, the moon, and the stars are set in the firmament and move across it. Above the firmament are the “waters above.” This reflects an ancient understanding of the universe and is not confirmed by modern science.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Bible contains “science errors galore,” for the simple reason that it isn’t trying to do science as we understand it in the 21st century. Sure, modern science has falsified certain naive readings and traditional translations of Scripture – we now know that the earth is far older than just six thousand years, for example – but most of these are on questions that the Bible actually leaves wide open to interpretation anyway. There’s also a lot of figurative language used throughout the Bible (I’m not convinced that the hard firmament and “waters above” were ever intended to be read literally) and to try and read figurative and metaphorical language as if it were literal scientific statements does the text a grave injustice.
Some of the claims that modern scholars make that certain epistles traditionally attributed to Paul were not written by Paul after all seem rather questionable to me, because many of the methods that they use to determine this particular fact don’t work when applied to modern texts of known authorship. There was an interesting discussion about this on this forum a while ago here:
Are you familiar with Denis Lamoureux who writes for BioLogos? He’s a biblical scholar who writes for BioLogos and is an expert on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Are you familiar with any of his work?
@DOL your help would be appreciated.
Speaking of Denis Lamoureux and science errors or misconceptions in the Bible, he wrote a book on it, found here, and very interesting to peruse:
He also goes into how we make sense of it as modern readers. Recommend it highly.
3 Likes
I’ve read his book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. it’s very good.
There are a number of his talks on youtube
He also has a free course about science and religion on coursera.org:
About the course:
This course examines the nature of both science and religion and attempts to explore the possible relationships between them. The primary purpose is to dispel the popular myth that science and religion are entrenched in a never-ending conflict. As a result, this course argues that if the limits of both science and religion are respected, then their relationship can be complementary.
Topics include: Science and Religion Categories and Foundational Principles, Definitions of Science and Religion, Science-Religion Models and Relationships, Intelligent Design and Natural Revelation, the Galileo Affair, Geology and Noah’s Flood, Evolution and Darwin’s Religious Beliefs, the Modern “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate, the Problem of Evil, and Interpretations of the Biblical Accounts of Origins in Genesis 1-11.
The course employs a Constructive Teaching Style in order that students can develop their personal views on the relationship between science and religion and on each of the topics listed above.
St. Joseph’s College is a Catholic, undergraduate, liberal arts college on the University of Alberta campus. It is an independent institution that is affiliated with the University of Alberta.
*Denis O. Lamoureux is Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta. He is the author of Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008), Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! (2016), and The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation (2020). Lamoureux is a Research Associate in Paleontology and has contributed to a dozen scientific papers. He is cited in the Who’s Who of Theology and Science and has delivered over 600 lectures throughout the United States and Canada. Lamoureux holds three earned *
doctoral degrees—dentistry, theology, and biology.
2 Likes
The firmament is solid and speckled with stars, holding up a sea of water. Sun god Re is in a boat crossing the heaven. Re enters the underworld (lower right), goes through the underworld, and rises in the east again. Earth is flat.
5 Likes
Thanks for your assistance.
Here is another image of the heavens with a firmament. Heavenly sea of water (wavey lines) held up by the firmament. Wandering stars (planet) next to the firmament.
3 Likes
Is this one Babylonian?
Yes. Shamash plaque. Shamash is the Babylonian sun god. 885-850 BC. The first one Egypt 1570-1085 BC.
2 Likes
Welcome to Forum, GodThoughts.
I read your piece, “A Different Gospel.”
I recognize that any piece of writing is equivalent to a snapshot of our thinking at that moment. Most of us continue to change and develop our thinking with new learning and understanding. I found your piece problematic in a number of ways, which serious study and time may help remedy.
Your blog post provoked the following thougths. It would be improved, if you worked on these items:
- You need to clearly identify the “false Gospel” Paul was addressing in Galatians and ICorinthians, which was not Gnosticism.
- You need an accurate, clear and detailed definition of “social gospel” and actual examples of what that is.
- Drop any mention of CRT and Marxism. They are social theories/philosophies. Their mention adds nothing to your piece except to provide dog whistles, which are not part of any well-developed point.
- The connections in this piece between the Gospel, justice and sin are messy.
- There is a whole detailed sermon by Jesus himself about justice and our individual role in it, and the connection between justice and righteousness. Your piece would be vastly improved, if you addressed the roll of promoting justice in the lives of Christians.
Here are a few articles and podcasts that might help with that last point:
7 Likes
Fascinating Denis, thanks. The Egyptian inspiration of Genesis’ cosmology is total. The Babylonian inverts all activity above the waters, with the fixed stars rolling in their deeps on the top of the firmament? One can see the court of heaven on the same continuum as man as in Moses and the prophets?
PS So, Genesis starts out Egyptian, but goes rapidly Babylonian?
1 Like
We can use all the theological fabric softener we want. At the end of the day the Bible assumes incorrect ancient cosmogony and uses it to make pronouncements about God. Nowhere is it shown to possess supernatural knowledge of science. In many places it shows the exact opposite.
The only thing questionable is the methodology of conservative exegetes in dismissing claims Paul did not write certain epistles through mental gymnastics. The facts are simple. There are hundreds of forgeries in antiquity. It was a common practice. We have several works by “Paul” already not in the NT because they are deemed forgeries. Paul’s name is a prime candidate to forge an epistle in. Thus, every unbiased historian not grinding a theological axe knows that every single work in antiquity has to be vetted for authorship. The mere fact that a letter claims to be written by someone means very little.
There are a bunch of arguments that all suggest pseudonymous composition of the Pastorals. The weight of the arguments are cumulative, not based on any one. Conservatives usually misrepresent critical scholarship and dismiss caricatures. The truth is some don’t like the conclusion and know ahead of time it must be wrong (because the Bible would never lie about authorship!) so they fault the methodology.
Can you provide any evidence in favor of Pauline authorship aside from idle speculation? Coming up with potential solutions or harmonizations to try to salvage Pauline authorship is bringing the evidence in conformity to your conclusion which was made beforehand. Affirming Pauline authorship requires positive evidence. Merely placating doubts through “what ifs” is not scholarship. Ancient works all exist alongside a sea of forgeries and that id how academic questions of authorship must approach the issue.
It is absolutely a solid slab. The mainline commentaries on Genesis make this plain. Only wishful thinking and a desire to maintain Biblical inerrancy suggests otherwise.
Vinnie
- a. The Earth Floats on Water -
“In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: ‘This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus ( Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: ‘Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water’. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales’s theory ( Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).” Thales of Miletus (c. 620 B.C.E.—c. 546 B.C.E.)
1 Like
I agree with you that science can’t prove we were created or come from nothing at this current juncture and probably never will be able to. For science errors galore here is something previous I wrote:
START: “How do we reconcile Genesis with science?”:
The short answer is we can’t reconcile Genesis with science. When read as a literal description of how the world was made, the scientific difficulties are insurmountable. The two-creation accounts in Genesis and several passages in other parts of Scripture cannot be reconciled with our current scientific understanding of the universe. Christianity has a long history of both advancing and fighting science. John Calvin famously wrote:
“We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possess them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence.” [Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24]
People who thought the earth moved were deemed deranged and possessed by the devil at one time but this isn’t as bad as it seems. Incorrect beliefs can be warranted and the proponents of them like Calvin can be intellectually forgiven. It is customary for pre-scientific people to embrace pre-scientific ideas and it takes time for major paradigm shifts to occur in human thinking. Conventional knowledge at the time would tell Calvin the sun moved and the earth stood still. The Bible is, after all, “unashamedly geocentric” to steal Derek Kidners phrasing. Sometimes scientific progress is at odds with what has been considered the plain understandings of Scripture for hundreds if not thousands of years. In today’s world it is no longer heliocentric vs geocentric ideology. For most that issue has fully worked itself out but now we have biological evolution needlessly battling creationism. First and foremost we must understand that the Bible is not a science textbook. It assumes the cosmogony of the time period it was written in. Scientific errors appear scattered throughout the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Parts of the Bible refer to the four corners of the earth (Is. 11:12), think thoughts come from our kidneys (Psalm 16:7), believe there is a solid firmament in the sky the stars are set in that lets water in or keepes it out (Genesis 1:7; 7:11; 8:2, Job 37:18, Ezekial 1:22, Isaiah 40:22), proclaims much to Galileo’s chagrin, the earth is immutable and does not move (1 Chron 16:30; Ps 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Is 45:8), that the earth is flat (Mt 4:8, Dan 4:10-11), stars are small and close enough to the earth they can fall from the sky and land on it (Rev 6:13-16, 8:10; Mt 2:10, 24:29; Dan 8:10). A host of problems are also evident if the details of Genesis 1-2 are taken as literal, factual history. A sampling is presented below and all of these texts could be multiplied several times over. We can certainly quibble over some of these potential conflicts and debate their intended meaning but overall, they make a pretty compelling case that God did not intend to leave us a scientific guide to creation nor did he feel the need to override the incorrect scientific and cosmological background knowledge of the Biblical authors. END
And this is to say nothing of the flood!
For the gospels, I recommend getting a synopsis and reading them side by side. We can see how one author intentionally changes the text granted we know Matthew and Luke copied Mark. We know they are not chronological and the setting is often artificial as it changes oddly at times and differs from Gospel to Gospel. For internal consistency errors see the resurrection accounts, infancy accounts, accounts of Judas’s death, was Jairus’s daughter dead already? Heck, even the accounts of Paul’s conversions contradict in Acts and all three come from the same author who is rather competent. We can also compare how John presents material radically different from the synoptics. Then there are anachronisms like Mark having Jesus assume women could divorce their husbands which makes little sense in its Jewish context. For historical ones, geography blunders are often pointed out, the census in Luke, the unlikelihood (utter absurdity) of Pilate releasing an insurrectionist guilty of murder and so on, the way the conflict narratives and Jesus’s disputes with leaders over the law are presented and so on.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Yes - but this is no more any problem for the Bible or what it teaches than, say, Jesus, making use of an “incorrect history of events” in order to tell a parable the purpose of which is to teach something else entirely. We make use of cultural stuff all the time (regardless of its correctness or wrongness) in order to help people more easily make connections. To “assume” such things for the sake of illumination and connection is not the same as our teaching or promoting the initial presumption. To try to make the teaching be about that is to entirely misunderstand and misapply the teaching.
4 Likes