Science is right when it correctly describes reality. Our Bible interpretations are right when they correctly describe reality. Reality- both the natural and supernatural realms of reality- is what we are trying to understand.
2 Likes
Ditto to Christyâs confusion about this. I donât yet see how this connects with what we were discussing either.
If I may guess at what youâre getting at ⌠Biologians (many of whom have significant scientific expertise or are scientists) do often speak of a certain set of tools that are essential in the practice of scientific methodologies. Historians, theologians, and others also have certain sets of tools for their respective disciplines. There may be some overlap of these tool sets, but they are still significantly different sets. Some scientific habits and approaches are not useful in the pursuit of all truth across other disciplines, and vice versa.
Is this the âseparationâ you find problematic?
Like when you interpret something literally. Like Psalm 91:4 says God has feathers or Psalms 18:2 says, Jesus is my rock.
Or all things are meant to be read literal. Or Zech 1:2-3. Everything from the face of the EarthâŚthen later the Israelites go into exile.
Genesis isnât a material account. Great video below from Dr. Walton.
Gen 1:16. 2 lights? The moon is a light? We know it is a reflection of light. We also know the sun is a big ball of gasâŚThey didnât know that back then, the sun was just a miraculous source of light, so was the moon.
Genesis is about the inauguration of the temple (earth), being told of its function , being filled with âguestsâ and God ruling over it all.
To expand on that. The earth was just a house on day 6, it wasnât a home till God dwelled and ruled it on day 7.
The Bible is the unquestionable standard with regards to important things. Who created us, why, how we messed up, how God reconciled us, how/whywe should live for Him.
But how science works, was it a material creation, was the flood literally global was it 40 thousand men in battle it 10 thousand etc. not important.
2 Tim 16-17 âAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.â
Can you do a good work knowing(assuming) the world is 4000 years old? Does it do the kingdom of God or bring God any glory if the flood was global or local? Scripture is for teaching life/purpose/function, not science. It doesnât say âuseful for proving theories, cosmological geology/history, chemistry, anatomyâ.
The Bible also says God makes it rain and that is what they believed back then, just like the sun was a light. Just because we know have the knowledge to understand the natural process of what the sun is or how it rains, it doesnât take God out of the picture.
God makes it rain, God created humans. The water heats up, evaporates, condenses, and gravity causes it to fall. Our genetics have small changes in concert with other factors that causes a change, and multiple changes over a long period of time could have been were humans developed from (ie. evolution).
They are both rain and evolution are congruent with the scriptures. God makes both happen.
I am not saying evolution is proven or a fact. But it is a theory with great logic behind it, and scripture doesnât refute it, so why not accept it?
I am afraid that this is not true. Genesis gives us insight into Science when it says that the universe has a Beginning. The Big Bang gives us insight into Genesis when it tells us how this happened. Both of these points of view support and strengthen each other.
If you say there is no overlap between science and theology, then you are agreeing with NOMA, Non-Overlapping Magisterial Authority. @Mervin_Bitikofer
You have divided Reality into two (non-overlapping?) realms. My understanding of the Bible and Christianity says that this is not do. That is why I keep bringing is John 1:1, which is also the origin of the concept of BioLogos. Biology and Jesus Christ are part of one Reality, not two. If so they are not basically different, which is what Darwinian natural selection says it is.
âŚso I guess itâs a good thing that I did not say that; since I donât agree with NOMA. Iâm pretty sure most âBiologiansâ also do not agree with NOMA.
Iâll repeat this here: theology in its broadest sense has all things (including science) within its purview.
No, I think there is one unified reality with overlapping natural and supernatural realms.
I agree, but if that is true then the quote below is not true.