> DP>Isn't the description used particularly suggestive that (or even
> >literally translated as) she received the ability to ovulate?
> Yes. What would be the problem with that? Our knowledge of NT Greek
> is still sketchy. The phrase katabolan spermatos in the 1st century
> may have had a popular meaning of a woman's ovulation that had no
> scientific content at all.
I think this is the point that Denis is getting at. The NT greek
must *necessarily* be scientifically inaccurate because their science
was limited, and so of course the popular means of describing their
universe would not necessarily agree with later scientific discoveries.
I have been working through Denis' last post (I need to find the BR
article he wants me to read... it wasn't in the one year I subscribed).
But so far I still think that Denis is giving `science' a bigger role
than it deserves, and that the limitations of the Scripture are
limitations of language not science. I agree with you that Heb 11:11
has no scientific content, but Denis doesn't (yet?) see it that way.
It appears that Denis wants to build an argument for dismissing the
implications of the Scripture regarding origins by demonstrating
that `the science of the Bible is historically conditioned.'
Personally, I don't think he will succeed. Whereas Heb 11:11 has only
incidental (if any) scientific content, there are statements in Genesis
that *specifically* contradict the current expectations of science (i.e.
the order of creation in Genesis 1, and species reproducing after their
own kind).
The authors likely understood sequencing of events, and had a rough
idea what it would mean for a species to reproduce after its own kind.
Thus they weren't limited by their current science in what they could
write (like in Heb 11:11). If what they say is in error, then the
problem is not science, but that the inspiration was actually in error.
This would be far more serious (if true).
What I think is more likely is that we don't really understand what
Genesis 1 is saying. I believe that it is deliberately metaphorical
because it was speaking of things that are beyond even *our* science.
However I believe it will be found to be completely accurate once we
understand the metaphors.
However the parts of Genesis 1 with obvious meaning (broad species
reproducing after there own kind) lead me to believe that at some point
in creation, the species were set (the observed stasis). Ihis is probably
the one scientific statement that I see as clearly stated.
But could the animals still be linked by evolutionary process up till
that point? Maybe God created them all individually using variations
in proven design techniques (providing the commonality that suggests
evolution to some)? Why have some species died off?
Did man come about because God selected some primate to receive
His image (paralleling Deu 14:2 and 1 Cor 1:26-29, 2 Thess 2:13)?
I don't know the answers to all these questions, and the Bible doesn't
really help me that much. This is what I think will be the real
problem with the argument that Denis is trying to construct. There is
so little science in the Scripture that there isn't a strong Biblical case
against evolution to begin with. The problem is not the Bible, but
`Science' trying to say `science' is truth'.
The discrepancies science must deal with are not with the Bible, they
are with the observations. I think that while evolution is excellent
`science,' it probably has nothing to do with the actual history of
life on Earth. I think that the same is true of cosmological models
(like the Big Bang).
I think that most scientists understand this, but they live in hope
that one day they will have reconstructed enough evidence for what
*actually* happened... and that it will resemble what they think now.
***
So, Denis: you can see I have been thinking some about your last
post, but I haven't sorted through enough to respond head on. If
you have comments on this `indirect' response, let me know.
And somebody, please tell me what `eisegesis' is.
--Dave*** Stephen, a post script on the cursing of the fig tree:
> I do not agree that this is necessarily an error (although it could > be). Archer's "Bible Difficulties" and Hendricksen's "Matthew" both > point out that Mark tends to record things chronologically, whereas > Matthew arranges them topically.
The difficulty with this example is that the withering takes place 'at once'in Matthew (with an ensuing teaching on faith), while in Mark, Peter noticesthe withered fig tree on a subsequent occasion (with the same ensuingteaching on faith). As I said, one possibility was that Peter was justbeing dense, but I think it is likely just an `error' in the chronology.
But it is really not an error, unless the authors were intending to speakto us about the chronology (vis a vis setting a context for the teaching).
For example, one could say that the Bible is in error because all thequotes of Jesus are not word-for-word identical. However most of uslikely accept that the quotes were not *supposed* to be literal quotes.
Resolving these issues doesn't require that we appeal to literarystyles of the age (as people sometimes do). Common sense usuallyguides us well enough. We only stumble when we are inclined tonitpick, at which point we have stumbled already.
This is similar to what Denis is saying about Heb 11:11, in that the pointwas not reproductive biology, and thus the details did not have to beaccurate (i.e. the infallability and inspiration of the Scriptureis undiminished).
***
> The point is that reality is often complex (even in simple things), > and summarising what happened in words, always leaves something out, > unless we wish to write a very tedious technical and chronological > account. The complex events of Resurrection Sunday have long been > thought to be erroneous. But Wenham "The Easter Enigma" has shown > how they could all agree. The point is that if: 1) we had been there> and 2) could ask the Bible writers what they meant; then we would> probably find that there was no error at all.
Yes. Exactly... Provided that our goal wasn't to `lawyer' them intocontradictions, but instead really understand what they were saying.
> To say that a certain verse in an ancient, much copied document was > definitely an error in the original, is to assume omniscience.
Of course it doesn't make any difference to me whether errors in thecopy I have were in the original or not. I don't have the original.This is why I think God wasn't concerned about the humanauthors making inconsequential mistakes. His confidence was notin the text delivered to *them*, but in His ability to preserve the intentof the Scripture for *us*, in order that Isaiah 55:11 might be true:
So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding {in the matter} for which I sent it.
There are people who (for philosophical reasons) require that the Scripturebe `inerrant in its original form,' but to say that inerrancy was importantand then to say that it was lost contradicts this passage in Isaiah.