>>I am not at all convinced that God is intent on teaching us the details of
>>geology, astronomy or any other science in the Scriptures.
Chuck wrote
>It is one thing to assert that Scripture is not a science text; it is
>another thing entirely to believe that such scientific "details" as the
>Bible contains are unreliable. Which view are you proposing?
Certainly I agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science text. I
am not claiming that "scientific 'details'" contained in the Bible are
unreliable. Rather I am claiming that statements in the Bible that are
sometimes considered "scientific 'details'" are not intended to be
understood as "scientific 'details'". Rather they are the kinds of
statements an observer would use to communicate what he saw in a way that
will be readily understood by his listeners/readers. For example, is
Joshua 10 truly teaching that the sun and moon orbit the earth? That's the
implication if we take every use of an observer expression to teach a fact.
Or in Matt 16:2 and 3 is Jesus really teaching that a red sky in the
morning _always_ means stormy weather, while a red sky in the evening
_always_ means good weather? I hope not, because I have seen nice days
follow red sunrises. In both cases, expressions that are not (always)
literally true are used to convey meanings that will be readily understood
by listeners. The question we have to ask when reading any kind of
literature is, "What is the author intending to communicate?" If we try to
extract something other than what the author intends to communicate, we are
likely _not_ to extract anything meaningful.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)