Using Science to Interpret Scripture: More Than “All Truth is God’s Truth”

(system) #1
“Science is a human invention. Scripture comes from God. How can it be right that science affects our interpretation of Scripture?”
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

(Brad Kramer) #2

As with the previous essay, @LorenHaarsma is available to respond to on-topic, thoughtful questions and comments.

(Christy Hemphill) #3

Amen to that.

I think I will take Brad’s suggestion and bookmark this post for future reference.

(Phil) #4

It is interesting how many do not think of how much what they read as scripture is a product of layers and layers of interpretation and translation, the basis of which is influenced by archaeology and linguistic science. We have faith the Holy Spirit has kept the vital message of the scripture true through the process, as do we have faith the message we see in creation has been kept true and faithful to the nature of God.

(Christy Hemphill) #5

Or sometimes not as much as you might hope. When it comes to light, for example, that the apostle Junia was clearly a woman (based on archaeology and linguistics and the oldest manuscripts) and that the assumption that she was a man was a translation error that was reinforced by centuries of cultural expectations and church practice, then we should adjust our interpretations accordingly, not put up a fight saying linguistics doesn’t get to trump the traditional teaching of the church for centuries. Same deal with science, I think.

(Marvin Adams) #6

As much as the biblical narrative uses poetic language to help us to comprehend reality science does so using mathematical / material language. Both of them require reading / interpretation of the words. The transcription factors of the mind is the holy spirit that allows us to see the harmony between the two.
Evolution is a good example for that. The success of an evolutionary process or genesis depends on the judgment of God - and God saw that it was good as it followed his law. The concept is best explained in the context of non biological systems that the bringing together of two entities with different capabilities releases a creative power, e.g to create something new…this is the basic principle behind technical inventions, business interactions - but also biological reproduction… The only thing to ponder about is the law by which the outcome of the process is seen to be good, thus being able to justify it’s existence e.g. be allowed to continue to exist. This final judgement is based on its compliance with the law of God,as Jesus boiled it down to, to love thy neighbour like thyself. one just has to fathom the essential difference between yourself and thyself.

(Patrick ) #7

really? How so? And please describe what you mean by “success” of an evolutionary process. I thought evolutionary processes were aimless and irreversible.

(Albert Leo) #8

One cannot deny that, over a period of 3 billion years, evolution has produced life that is more aware, more complex, and capable of more kinds of chemistry. Continued movement in that ‘direction’ may be considered ‘success’.
Al Leo

(Patrick ) #9

Yes, I would agree that green grass and a tall oak tree is an example of successful life on earth. And of course you’re great-great granddaughter!

(Marvin Adams) #10

if your existence does not provide sufficient benefit to the system exist in you get removed from the system or the system itself collapses. Success is approved by the permission for continued existence.

(Patrick ) #11

Who makes that judgement?

(Marvin Adams) #12

The essence of existence. Most of us refer to it as God. You could call it nature if it makes you feel more comfortable

(Patrick ) #13

What if God doesn’t exist, then who makes that judgement?

(Marvin Adams) #14

I guess everything is living happily ever after and nothing will die :slight_smile:

(Patrick ) #15

Yes, a nice fantasy.

(system) #16

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.