On Tue, 19 Dec 1995 16:15:54 -0800 you wrote:
SJ...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.
DP>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.
Agreed. But there is a difference in being "scientifically inaccurate"
and being in error. I don't rule out the possibility of human error in
Scripture, but neither do I assume that every apparent error is an
error. I think Christianity would survive and flourish with a Bible
that has 1% error. One could easily argue that: a) God would not
make the Bible 100% error free because this would be an absolute
proof of God and thus interfere with God's plan of justification by
faith (Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:11); and b) a perfect Bible would
lead to Bibliolatry. But OTOH, a Bible with 99% (or even 50%) error
would make it difficult to know what was truth and what was error.
[...]
DP>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.
Yes. What does "1st century science" really mean? I suggest it was
really just 1st century speculation. I would be surprised if anyone
took the double-seed theory seriously, in the sense that modern
science takes its theories seriously. What did they do with this
theory?
DL>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.'
I agree with Him that "the Bible is historically conditioned". But
that does not mean it is not true. If "historically conditioned"
means error, then God's special revelation of truth would be
impossible, because the productions of every human culture is
"historically conditioned".
DP>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).
Agreed about "the order of creation". I thought "species" did
reproduce "after their own kind"? :-)
DP>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).
Agreed, but I would not necessarily have a problem with "the
inspiration" being "actually in error", if it could be shown it was.
A classic case is Stephen's speech in Acts 7 where he is said to be
speaking "full of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:55), yet apparently makes a
couple of factual errors, which are however not central to his
message. There would only be a problem if Stephen was in error in the
central core of his message to the Jewish religious leaders that they
had executed their own Messiah.
DP>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.
Gn 1 is "completely accurate" but not as "science" per se. Gn 1's
metaphysical framework about the natural world is "completely
accurate", and where it intersects with science, as special revelation
it has priority. For example, when it says "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth" (Gn 1:1), and "God made...all the
creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds." (Gn
1:25), then these statements of ultimate reality have unavoidable
implications for science.
DP>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). This is
>probably the one scientific statement that I see as clearly stated.
IMHO it means: 1) ultimately God brought into being all categories of
living things (without specifying exactly how) and 2) God set
boundaries in the living world, as part of Gn 1's general theme
of bringing order out of chaos.
DP>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?
My point is, why is it an *evolutionary* process? If Theism is true,
then Naturalism is false. Why then do we use Naturalism's terminology
for the origin and development of the living world?
DP>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 believe that the image of God is something that man receives,
it is something that man *is*: "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
(Gn 1:27).
The image of God is the *whole man*, not just a "spiritual" bit. The
image of God must include those things that are unique in man: his
bipedality, his intelligence, his linguistic ability, his
spirituality.
I would have no problem with God building up this image from hominid
ancestors.
DP>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'.
Actually, I think "the Bible" is of enormous "help". It sets the
overall metaphysical framework within which the facts discovered by
scientists can be fitted.
Science is good at the "how" but impotent in the "what" and "why".
Science could dig up every human fossil and totally map the human
genome, but never ever discover that man is significant because only
he has been made in the image of God.
DP>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).
Disagree. Science at base is just ordinary human thinking, albeit by
a rigorous method. If Christians deny science, they deny the
validity of human thinking. If human thinking is invalid, then
so is the apostles' testimony to Christ resurrection.
I believe the actual facts that scientists discover are true. But I
don't think the naturalistic metaphysical framework in which
scientists arrange and interpret those facts is true.
DP>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.
Hmmm. I think that they believe that they have a fair idea of "what
actually happened". This is strongest where theories can be tested
rigorously, eg. in astronomy, physics and chemistry. In evolutionary
biology I think they have very little idea of "what actually
happened".
DP>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 I thought this was to me! :-(
DP>And somebody, please tell me what `eisegesis' is.
It is the opposite of exegesis, which is to read out (ex = out) of
scripture, ie. declare scripture's meaning. Eisegesis (eis = into) is
to read into scripture one's own meaning.
DP>*** 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 notices
>the withered fig tree on a subsequent occasion (with the same ensuing
>teaching on faith). As I said, one possibility was that Peter was just
>being 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 speak
>to 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 the
>quotes of Jesus are not word-for-word identical. However most of us
>likely accept that the quotes were not *supposed* to be literal quotes.
>
>Resolving these issues doesn't require that we appeal to literary
>styles of the age (as people sometimes do). Common sense usually
>guides us well enough. We only stumble when we are inclined to
>nitpick, at which point we have stumbled already.
>
>This is similar to what Denis is saying about Heb 11:11, in that the point
>was not reproductive biology, and thus the details did not have to be
>accurate (i.e. the infallability and inspiration of the Scripture
>is undiminished).
Agreed.
SJ>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.
DP>Yes. Exactly... Provided that our goal wasn't to `lawyer' them
>into contradictions, but instead really understand what they were
>saying.
I read somewhere that James Mitchener wrote his books so that
the idle dabbler would be turned off after the first dozen
pages. Mitchener only wanted committed readers. Similarly, believe
that Scripture has been written to filter out the hostile,
unbelieving critic.
SJ>To say that a certain verse in an ancient, much copied document was
>definitely an error in the original, is to assume omniscience.
DP>Of course it doesn't make any difference to me whether errors in
>the copy 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 human
>authors making inconsequential mistakes. His confidence was not in
>the text delivered to *them*, but in His ability to preserve the
>intent of 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
>Scripture be `inerrant in its original form,' but to say that
>inerrancy was important and then to say that it was lost contradicts
>this passage in Isaiah.
Agree and disagree. While God's word has through most of Church
history been mediated through slightly imperfect copies, it is
important to realise that the originals might not have contained the
vast majority of these imperfections. While in *evangelism* we can
function with an imperfect Bible, in *theology* we must try to recover
the original text.
Before Denis builds his theory of the Biblical writer's believing the
science of the day, to wit, the writer of Hebrews subscribing to a
"double-seed" theory of human reproduction, based on the text saying
that Sarah had a seminal emission, I would like to see it established
first that the word "Sarah" was not an interpolation of an early
marginal gloss, added by a "helpful" scribe who himself might have
believed a "double-seed" theory.
Just as all inches are based on an original standard inch kept in a
vault in a Dept of Standards, so all Biblical doctrines are based on
the presumed original text. Denis must presume the original said
"Sarah", otherwise he has no theory. No one builds a Biblical theory
on a copyist error.
The point is that if we accept uncritically that every apparent
error must be an error in the original, we might be driven down the
road of accepting un-Biblical doctrines (under the influence of an
evolutionary paradigm), that we don't need to.
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------