What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

Could you be more specific with the question?

I wasn’t looking for a long answer. If you haven’t noticed I always go for a short answer. Let me break it down.

What aids do you use to come to an understanding of the meaning of a passage written in Hebrew?

How do you address the problem of Hebrew literature being written using different structures than English literature? Some of these structures are very important if you want to get to the meaning of a passage.

What do you use to come to an understanding of how the original audience for Scripture would have understood a passage. Understanding the message in terms of who it was written to is the first step in determining what it means to those it was written for. You actually are already doing this in your view of Job, as repeatedly pointed out by George, when you say it is just a figurative passage. What do you think Jesus would have said about Job 38.22 if He had been asked what it meant? And might His answer been different when given then vs if given now?

[Chris_Falter]

@Mike_Gantt

I just said [lowering expectations of the BIble regarding science] was the quickest and easiest way.

Hi Mike,

I’ve actually found it’s the slowest and hardest way to work through God’s message to me.

If I can tie up Genesis 1 in a bow, state that it’s a story of material origins in 6 24-hour days, it all seems pretty straightforward.

On the other hand, working through what Genesis means in its original cultural milieu — what a functional ontology works, as opposed to a material ontology, seeing how Israelites didn’t distinguish between primary and secondary causation the way we do, etc. – is really hard work. Edifying and worthwhile, but far from easy.

There is another question I want to ask you. I recognize that you want to take a break from this conversation, which I applaud. (Really!) The only reason I am going to write this now is that I think it’s a really interesting and important question, and if forgetful, disorganized Chris doesn’t write it now, it won’t get written. If you want to answer next week, or next month–or never, if you think the question is not important–it doesn’t bother me.

The question is this: why are you willing to apply the hermeneutical principle of accommodation to science in the Bible, but not to history?

I understand that some history is vital to our faith. If Abraham did not leave Ur of the Chaldees; if Jesus did not heal the sick, go to the cross, and get resurrected from the dead; then our faith is dead and meaningless. I get that. But I don’t think that viewing Genesis as a functional ontology rather than material would render the Jewish practice of the Sabbath meaningless. In the same way that God was overcoming disorder in the six days, then entering into His envisioned relationship with creation and mankind in the seventh, so did the Israelites work for six days by the sweat of their brows to overcome the disorder of the curse, then enter on the seventh day into relationship with God and one another. It has always been wrong to think of the Sabbath as a cessation from all productive activity. Jesus Himself taught us that.

Given this background, I’m thinking that the hermeneutical principle of accommodation can be applied with respect to much of the history in Genesis, just as it can be applied with respect to much of the science.

Enjoy your time away. I’ll be very disappointed if you reply to this post in the next 4 days!

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Jonathan_Burke

I wasn’t saying “You just need go to high school and someone will tell you what to believe”, which I suspect may have been how I was read.

I know. I’m saying that if one really wants to know and understand, high school is unnecessary.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

Bill II:
If I might ask, how do you approach understanding a document written 4,000 years ago in a different language and in a different cultural setting?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:258, topic:36256”]

The short answer is: humbly.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t real understanding necessarily include learning the language in which the document was written?

[Casper_Hesp]

Hi Mike,

@Casper_Hesp

I think your interactions here will end up being more enjoyable if you don’t measure the worth of your time spent here in terms of becoming convinced or not, but rather in terms of personal interactions and exchange of different perspectives in a spirit of kindness.

@Mike_Gantt

I don’t see the pursuit of one impinging on pursuit of the other.

Fair enough. But it is my experience that these two pursuits can compete with each other. An atmosphere of debate is usually not the best for personal interactions.

@Mike_Gantt

Any “rigidity” you sense is, I think, projected rather than present.

Sorry, it was not my intention to project anything on you. Of course, it is highly probable that our views differ on what is and what is not to be described as “rigid.”

@Mike_Gantt

I see no conflict between the Bible and science; rather, there are conflicts between the history found in the Bible and the history presented by science.

The distinction between “historical science” and “experimental science” is often belabored by people who adhere to YEC and, unfortunately, mistakenly so. It is an attempt to salvage science while rejecting the claims of scientists about history. However, with the advances of modern science, there is no distinction anymore between science itself and the natural history it has uncovered down to astonishing detail. You cannot accept one and reject the other.

Also, I believe the Bible was written first and foremost by people, basing its credibility largely on eyewitness accounts. Therefore, it is necessarily limited to the history of (a part of) mankind. I believe the authors were inspired by God, while He always respected their human limitations therein. I do not view what they wrote as being dictated directly by God. Instead, I belief that the Bible is a record of the two-way personal relationship between God and man, which comes with unavoidable bumps. Much in the same way, the incarnation of Christ came with unavoidable bumps.

@Mike_Gantt

I can’t tell if you are professing a belief in the “God’s two books: nature and the Bible” paradigm

I am not a fan of the “two-books paradigm” because I believe it oversimplifies the relationship between Scripture and nature (note that I write only the first with a capital letter). However, it can sometimes be useful as an introduction to different ways of thinking about the relationship between Scripture and nature.

@Mike_Gantt

I see the biblical text giving a much simpler explanation than what you are proposing.

The explanation you have highlighted does not actually serve to replace my proposal. On the contrary, you have quoted the most important passages that make the link between the 6+1 structure of Genesis 1 and the working week. My proposal serves to explain why this connection was made, and answers your question:

@Mike_Gantt

If God tells Israel to work six days and rest on the seventh as an act of imitation, how can we say God didn’t work on six days and rest on the seventh?

Because the motive of 6+1 was used (1) to explain God’s creative activity to the Jews in a way understandable for them and (2) to establish weekly worship practices in their daily lives. I don’t know how to make this point any more straightforward than this. I am not at all choosing this interpretation “over what the text actually says”. Instead, I am grounding “what the text actually says” in what it most likely would have meant to the original audience. I submit this interpretation in the humble awareness that I could be completely mistaken myself, given my own human limitations.

Casper

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

I am a Western man who has for decades been trying - poorly perhaps, but trying - to shape his life around a set of ancient Eastern writings. It’s tedious to be repeatedly accused of cross-cultural insensitivity.

What practical steps do you take to achieve this? For example, when you interpret references to the pillars and corners of the earth figuratively, how do you arrive at this interpretation by applying cultural sensitivity?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Casper_Hesp

The distinction between “historical science” and “experimental science” is often belabored by people who adhere to YEC and, unfortunately, mistakenly so. It is an attempt to salvage science while rejecting the claims of scientists about history. However, with the advances of modern science, there is no distinction anymore between science itself and the natural history it has uncovered down to astonishing detail. You cannot accept one and reject the other.

I think it’s helpful to explain here that it’s not the distinction between “experimental” and “historical” science that is incorrect (I have seen non-YECs making the distinction, including on a BioLogos blog post), but the claim that historical science is based on untestable assumptions. What YECs need to be made aware of is how historical assumptions can be, and are, tested: cross-checks and testable predictions.

The “were you there?” fallacy

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

What aids do you use to come to an understanding of the meaning of a passage written in Hebrew?

Since I can’t read Hebrew, I rely on multiple English transations - prioritized by the degree to which they seek to hew to the original in their translations. You can view my prioritization as 1) the NASB 2) ESV, KJV, NKJV, HCSB 3) about two dozen others 4) paraphrases.

@Bill_II

How do you address the problem of Hebrew literature being written using different structures than English literature? Some of these structures are very important if you want to get to the meaning of a passage.

In addition to the translations, I use a number of study Bibles. Study Bibles, of course, reflect the theological persuasion of those who write the notes. Therefore, I cross check them against each other when a point is controversial. While I lean to conservative commentators, I don’t always prefer their conclusions to those of liberal commentators.

When studying any passage, I never study it in isolation from the rest of the Bible. The historical and cultural context of the passage is important but equally so is anything the rest of the Bible’s authors may have said about it or about the events, people, and ideas within it. I look for any idea considered important in the Bible to be repeated (see 2 Cor 13:1) and distrust any interpretation for which biblical support can be found in only one verse or passage.

I look to the same Holy Spirit who inspired these writings to help me understand it. This requires humility and time. Related to this, and in the light of Ps 111:10, I recognize that my daily obedience to Christ is a factor in my studies. That is, if I am not becoming more like Christ each day, my understanding of the Bible is going to be inhibited. Understanding the Bible is not strictly an intellectual activity.

This is not all I do, but it does represent my approach in broad strokes.

I want to answer the questions of the last paragraph of your post, too, but am out of time for now. Will get back to it as soon as I can.

P.S. Here is the continuation and conclusion.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II, this is the continuation and conclusion of the response to you I began here.

@Bill_II

What do you use to come to an understanding of how the original audience for Scripture would have understood a passage.

Generally speaking, the methods I described above. [quote=“Bill_II, post:261, topic:36256”]
Understanding the message in terms of who it was written to is the first step in determining what it means to those it was written for.
[/quote]

Of course.

@Bill_II

You actually are already doing this in your view of Job, as repeatedly pointed out by George, when you say it is just a figurative passage. What do you think Jesus would have said about Job 38.22 if He had been asked what it meant? And might His answer been different when given then vs if given now?

I follow neither your logic nor George’s. The ancients (including Jesus) believed that there were spiritual realities behind the physical realities that we see with our eyes. For them to understand Job 38:22 the way you and George are proposing would represent an entirely different point of view - specifically, that they believed there were physical realities behind the physical realities that we see with our eyes. I think to insist that either God or the author of Job 38:22 meant that there were physical storehouses for the physical snow and hail is unwarranted and amounts to eisegesis.

By the way, your mention of Jesus gives me the opportunity to say what is, for me, the most important application of the principle I described above (“When studying any passage, I never study it in isolation from the rest of the Bible” - which can be described as “Letting Scripture interpret Scripture”). That most important application has to do with the Old Testament and it is this: When reading the OT, whenever possible, understand it as Jesus understood it. We learn how Jesus understood the OT by reading the NT. It is not just the red letters than can tell how Jesus understood an OT passage or concept; it is also the black letters, because the apostles interpreted the OT the way Jesus (whether in the flesh or through the Holy Spirit) taught them to interpret it. Thus while historical-grammatical methods and comparative ANE studies are valuable and have their place, an interpretation by Jesus trumps them all. After all, He is Lord.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Chris_Falter

Enjoy your time away. I’ll be very disappointed if you reply to this post in the next 4 days!

Sorry to disappoint…but I will only do so slightly.

@Chris_Falter

I’ve actually found it’s the slowest and hardest way to work through God’s message to me.

You have completely misunderstood what I meant by “lowering one’s expectations of the Bible.” Your adding the two words “regarding science” must be reflective of that. A person who lowers his expectation of the Bible wouldn’t be willing to work long and hard trying to understand it. Lowering one’s expectation of the Bible includes regarding it as something less than the word of God and thus as something not necessarily authoritative. Lowering one’s expectation of the Bible is the opposite of having a high view of Scripture. The less one expects from the Bible, the less time he’s willing to spend in trying to understand what it is saying.

@Chris_Falter

The question is this: why are you willing to apply the hermeneutical principle of accommodation to science in the Bible, but not to history?

I LOVE this question! It is so relevant to our discussion; like any good question, it clarifies and focuses attention on an essential point. I look forward to answering it when I have time. (Thus my attempt at ameliorating your initial disappointment.)

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

The ancients (including Jesus) believed that there were spiritual realities behind the physical realities that we see with our eyes. For them to understand Job 38:22 the way you and George are proposing would represent an entirely different point of view - specifically, that they believed there were physical realities behind the physical realities that we see with our eyes. I think to insist that either God or the author of Job 38:22 meant that there were physical storehouses for the physical snow and hail is unwarranted and amounts to eisegesis.

Here’s the problem. You know where snow and hail comes from. So when you read Job 38.22 you take that to be a figurative passage with a spiritual meaning. What did the ancients know about snow and hail? Not a lot, just that it falls from the sky. They had no idea that water vapour is transported into a cloud. So where could the water, which they knew was a physical substance, come from? It had to come from somewhere and a storehouse is probably a pretty good guess if you didn’t know otherwise. There is a lot of it that falls after all. So to understand that they believed in a physical storehouse is reasonable.

I know it is hard to do, but forget what you know about rain. You are standing in the desert when suddenly rain starts to fall on you. What do you see? You would see clouds, but you wouldn’t know that a cloud is made from water. It looks light and fluffy and floats above your head. You see liquid water for which you are grateful, but where did the water come from? How would you explain this to someone without referring to the water cycle?

I don’t understand what you mean by “they believed there were physical realities behind the physical realities that we see with our eyes”. Remember the question is what did they see not what we see.

I wouldn’t consider this eisegesis as I am not adding to the text. I am not adding a modern understanding directly to the text. Never have heard if there is a term for this but there should be. Modern understanding should be applied when we try to come up with the meaning of the text.

[Chris_Falter]

@Mike_Gantt

You have completely misunderstood what I meant by “lowering one’s expectations of the Bible.” Your adding the two words “regarding science” must be reflective of that.

Hi Mike,

I was trying to interpret what “it” meant in the context of your conversation with someone else. Thanks for the clarification, it helps greatly.

@Mike_Gantt

I LOVE this question! …I look forward to answering it when I have time.

Great! I look forward to hearing what you have to say when the time arrives.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mike_Gantt

Since I can’t read Hebrew, I rely on multiple English transations…

What is preventing you from learning Hebrew, Mike?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:268, topic:36256”]
While I lean to conservative commentators, I don’t always prefer their conclusions to those of liberal commentators.
[/quote]
I think that’s the explanation for the lack of consistency in your Biblical understanding of weather, heliocentricity, et al. vs. geology and biology. I think that you are putting your authoritarian politics before theology. It also explains why you, intentionally or not, have repeatedly portrayed science as mere authoritarian hearsay.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Chris_Falter

why are you willing to apply the hermeneutical principle of accommodation to science in the Bible, but not to history?

Because I do not see the Bible making scientific claims. I do, however, see it making historical claims.

@Chris_Falter

I understand that some history is vital to our faith.

What principle do you use to decide which history is vital to our faith and which is not?

The apostle Paul made clear that we should be willing to give up all of Christianity if the resurrection of Christ is not historical. The ninth commandment condemns all false testimony. If the Bible testifies falsely about historical events, then it has forfeited its reputation for truth.

Scientifically-generated history (SGH) refutes the Bible’s testimony of a supernatural origin of the universe, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood. These events are all foundational to the coherence of the messianic plan. If SGH is given authority to overrule the Bible on these events, it can eventually overrule it on any of its other historical claims.

Galileo, Kepler, and others have given principled reasons why the Bible and science should not be viewed as conflicting. I’m not a scientist, but I can see their logic; and I stand with them. However, we are facing an issue they did not face. Our issue is conflicts between the Bible and history (specifically, SGH).

If someone can give me a principled reason for distinguishing among the events presented as historical in the Bible between those which we are to accept as history and those which we are to reject, I will give it due consideration. Up until now, all I’ve heard is ad hoc justifications. SGH brings a specific biblical historical claim into question and out rush the accommodations. Make me believe that there is a principled accommodation. The only principle I’ve seen on display so far is that SGH cannot be challenged because of the S.

Kepler and Galileo were not arguing that the Bible’s historical claims were to be set aside in the case of any conflict with sciences historical claims. If you want us to do that, make a cogent case for it as they made a cogent case for the issue they faced.

My point in initially celebrating your question, and in doing so again right now, is not to try to settle the question. Rather, I hope every participant following this discussion will recognize that you have rightly identified the field where the crucial battle is being fought in our age. Please, please, please will everyone stop acting like this is an argument about the Bible versus science! You may think that SGH is inseparable from science, and you may even be right, but you are never going to hold the attention of those whom you’re trying to persuade if you don’t recognize that it is SGH - not science - that is the sharp stick in our eye.

[Mike_Gantt]

@benkirk

Wouldn’t real understanding necessarily include learning the language in which the document was written?

Desirable but not necessary. Even the New Testament makes clear that the early church relied heavily on the Greek version of the Old Testament.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Casper_Hesp

The distinction between “historical science” and “experimental science” is often belabored by people who adhere to YEC and, unfortunately, mistakenly so. It is an attempt to salvage science while rejecting the claims of scientists about history. However, with the advances of modern science, there is no distinction anymore between science itself and the natural history it has uncovered down to astonishing detail. You cannot accept one and reject the other.

Also, I believe the Bible was written first and foremost by people, basing its credibility largely on eyewitness accounts. Therefore, it is necessarily limited to the history of (a part of) mankind. I believe the authors were inspired by God, while He always respected their human limitations therein. I do not view what they wrote as being dictated directly by God. Instead, I belief that the Bible is a record of the two-way personal relationship between God and man, which comes with unavoidable bumps. Much in the same way, the incarnation of Christ came with unavoidable bumps.

Alas, I don’t see anyway to understand your position other than this: any claim of scientifically-generated history (SGH) takes precedence over any historical claim of the Bible. Am I misunderstanding your position?

@Casper_Hesp

Because the motive of 6+1 was used (1) to explain God’s creative activity to the Jews in a way understandable for them and (2) to establish weekly worship practices in their daily lives. I don’t know how to make this point any more straightforward than this. I am not at all choosing this interpretation “over what the text actually says”. Instead, I am grounding “what the text actually says” in what it most likely would have meant to the original audience.

Are you saying the original audience understood the part about God working six days and resting on the seventh as fiction or as fact?

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

If the Bible testifies falsely about historical events, then it has forfeited its reputation for truth.

Then you have some problems that are not SGH. Sodom was not destroyed when the Bible says it was. Jericho’s walls did not fall when the Bible said they did. Walled cities which the Bible says were destroyed by Joshua didn’t exist at the time of Joshua. Noah’s global flood never happened. The children of Israel didn’t come out of Egypt when the Bible says. Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? Or do you allow tolerances for the history in the Bible?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

Then you have some problems that are not SGH. Sodom was not destroyed when the Bible says it was. Jericho’s walls did not fall when the Bible said they did. Walled cities which the Bible says were destroyed by Joshua didn’t exist at the time of Joshua. Noah’s global flood never happened. The children of Israel didn’t come out of Egypt when the Bible says. Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? Or do you allow tolerances for the history in the Bible?

Who told you these things did not happen?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

What practical steps do you take to achieve this?

I outline these here.

[Mike_Gantt]

@jammycakes

Not having been there may mean we don’t know everything about the past. But it doesn’t mean we know nothing.

That’s not the claim I am making. Rather, I am saying that you cannot study the past in the same way you can study the present. For example, you cannot conduct a controlled experiment in the past. When you project a history in pre-historic times you are ipso facto doing so without any human testimony. This is a different kind of history - it is scientifically-generated history (SGH).

Now, I am willing to concede that SGH may be right, and that all the Bible’s historical claims with which it conflicts can be explained away by one method or another, but when you won’t admit that this is a different kind of history, you lose credibility with me because it makes me feel that you think you may lose the argument if you concede this point. If SGH is true, so be it; but it is not history involving human testimony. If you want me to listen to anything else you say, please concede this obvious fact.