No.
I don’t see it as you do.
What do you see then? Fill in the blanks:
The original audience read the texts to mean _____
You read the text to mean ____
Don’t you need to give specific examples (i.e. chapter and verse)? I don’t see how you could fill in a blank to apply in all situations.
I was just asking about the geocentric verses in general. Like Psalm 104:5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
Didn’t I send you a link to the site with the 67 verses that prove the sun rotates around the earth?
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:100, topic:36307”]
I wouldn’t lump those two things together. Having stipulated that…[/quote]
I’m puzzled. Why would you stipulate that without explanation?
[quote]And so while I supporting re-interpreting the OT when appropriate, I do not at all support re-writing it.[/quote]So you don’t support Jesus Christ when He explicitly contradicts the OT?
[quote]I don’t see Jesus making this sort of distinction, as if there were two classes of Scripture.
[/quote]I sure do! If He didn’t, He would have rejected questions about which commandments were more important than others.
I just read such verses figuratively. I’ve never spent much time trying to get into the ancient mind to figure out precisely how they thought about such expressions. This is for two reasons: 1) Jesus taught us to see the OT primarily according to the spirit and not according to the flesh, and 2) in a general sense, the ancients seem to relate to creation the way we do, which is according to appearance (thus my local meterologist tells me when the sun is going to rise even though he’s had lots of scientific training).
That is obvious from the way you treat days.
But to us the appearance of creation is one of a great age. They just didn’t have the eyes to see it the same way we do. When I look at the Grand Canyon I can’t help but to think of the vast amount of time that was required to carve that canyon.
1 Like
You are using the word “appearance” in a different sense than I was. When I said that the ancients “seem to relate to creation the way we do, which is according to appearance,” I was referring to appearance according to the naked eye - thus we see, just as they saw, the sun rise in the east. You then used the word “appearance” to refer to what we see today through telescopes and microscopes - which is, of course, appearance in a different sense. I’m not saying my use of the word is any more or less valid than yours. I’m only saying that your comparison breaks down because you’re using the word in a different way. As you say, “they just didn’t have the eyes to see it the same way we do.” But we do have eyes to see it the same way they did.
Your focus is on how the ancients saw things differently from the way we do; I’m focused on what we have in common. The Bible is about morals, and the history it presents reveals a lot about morals.
As for the Grand Canyon, a flood-denying geologist sees it the way you do, while a flood-believing geologist sees a sign of God’s judgment.
I do not think that any of us, or ancients, simply see things - we are bound to undertake mental activity that is synonymous with understanding what we see. This understanding is based on what we have been taught and what we add as knowledge during our life.
The ancients worked within a background and context that differs radically from ours. Nonetheless they considered their view and perception to be valid and accurate, just as we would say today, for example - look, anyone can see the sky is blue. We would add nowadays, the sky is the atmosphere covering the planet and light from the sun falls on it, etc etc and thus we understand why the colour is what we observe. The ancients would have discussed it otherwise.
I suggest that debating the difference in perception of the material may be a waste of time. If however, someone says the ancients did not have a modern understanding of a blue sky, therefore they did not worship God and lived by faith, then we would show these moderns they indulge in error.
2 Likes
I stipulated it because I was uncomfortable with a linking Jesus’ right to re-interpret the OT with our right to re-interpret it. Those rights are very different; He is the Lawgiver and we are not. However, since that wasn’t germane to issue between @Bill_II and I, and since I could agree with him that we should re-interpret the OT when we have better understanding, I didn’t want to dwell on that about which we disagreed. I was ready to explain the stipulation to him, but only if it was important to him for me to do so.
I am unaware of Jesus ever contradicting the OT. On the contrary, He went to the cross having prayed “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17)
Jesus indeed said some parts of the Bible were more important than others, but He didn’t say that the less important parts were less true.
Very nice work in the use of sweeping generalities. But you seem unable to discuss specifics:
-
Are Jews and Christians Gods?
-
Was Jesus just pulling the legs of his Jewish followers when he described communion bread and wine as becoming his flesh and blood?
-
Was Moses wrong about stoning adulterers?
I would say a Bible-believing, science-believing geologist sees it the way I do. A Bible-believing, science-denying geologist sees it as the result of a global flood.
If you think I am a little too harsh with the science-denying part, go outside and take a look at the stars that we know from simple geometry are more than 10,000 light years away and try to figure out how the earth can be young.
1 Like
Yes, I do think you’re being harsh. If BioLogos folks don’t want to be considered as denying the Bible in their embrace of science, shouldn’t they be willing to grant that a YEC geologist is not necessarily denying science in his embrace of the Bible?
Unless you’re willing to grant that it is at least possible that each geologist in this sentence is able to hold his position in good conscience, I would say you are being unfair.
So Jesus Christ indeed tells us that there are two classes, one more important than the other.
1 Like
No EC accuses YECs of denying science in their embrace of the Bible. They’re justly identified as denying science when they deny science, regardless of their embrace of the Bible.
2 Likes
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:114, topic:36307”]
shouldn’t they be willing to grant that a YEC geologist is not necessarily denying science in his embrace of the Bible?
Mike_Gantt:
As for the Grand Canyon, a flood-denying geologist sees it the way you do, while a flood-believing geologist sees a sign of God’s judgment.[/quote]
That’s not how science works; it’s not passive interpretation of existing data. Is the flood-believing geologist testing any hypotheses?
[quote]Unless you’re willing to grant that it is at least possible that each geologist in this sentence is able to hold his position in good conscience, I would say you are being unfair.
[/quote]It’s not unfair if the flood-believing geologist isn’t testing his hypotheses in the field or the lab. It’s perfectly accurate.
Nothing in what I wrote suggests that the YEC geologist isn’t testing his hypotheses in the field or the lab.
Sorry but I can’t figure out how what I think about a YEC geologist has to do with me denying the Bible. The “embrace of science” and “embrace of the Bible” comments are very telling of your position.
I have never seen a YEC geologist do “science”. They try to come up with reasons/explanations/excuses for why the science is wrong but that is not doing science.
Short explanation. I was reading an article by a YEC person who was trying to explain why the ancient view of the Grand Canyon is wrong. They were trying to explain how all of the various layers were put down over the 1 year of the flood. Problem was the picture they used in the article showed the person standing in a rock cut in the Grand Canyon. Clearly visible in one of the layers was a river channel that had been eroded into the layer and then filled in by the layer above. They were trying to say that the layers showed no signs of erosion when standing in front of a great example of erosion. So would you consider this “science?” Or is it just wilful blindness?
No doubt that each holds their position in good conscience. But I thought you wanted a way to embrace the Bible and science at the same time.
But their tests always fail so they haven’t been able to come up with a hypotheses that is correct. I will say they do continue to try.
1 Like
I didn’t suggest that you suggested it. I simply provided the criterion for fairness.
Do you object to my using that criterion? If not, can you point me to a YEC geologist who is testing his hypotheses, or at a minimum has a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions?
But nothing in my sentence said anything about the YEC geologist denying science. The only other characteristic I assigned to him was that he saw Noah’s Flood and the primary reason that the Grand Canyon looks the way it does. If on that basis, you say he has denied science, then how are you not saying that his embrace of the Bible on that point is ipso facto denial of science?