>At 10:00 PM 3/13/96 -0600, Chuck Warman quoted me:
>>>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.
Thanks for your response, Bill. I don't think we really have a disagreement
here; I was primarily asking for my own edification. But I'll put in my
.02 anyway.
In interpreting "scientific details" it appears to me that there are at
least three possibilities for any text: (a) figurative language (i.e.,
Psalm 98:8); (b) phenomenal language (your example of Matt 16:2,3 or Eph
4:26); or (c) plain statements of historical fact (Gen 9:17-23, *I think*).
I would take Joshua 10 to be possibly a combination of (b) and (c).
I certainly agree that the author's intention is paramount, but can we
always know? This uncertainty seems to me to be at the heart of all the
debate about how to interpret Gen 1-9, and I certainly don't have all the
answers. I use the rule of thumb "when in doubt, use (c)" - it seems to me
to give God the benefit of the doubt. I think overuse of (b) - phenomenal
language, or "author's viewpoint," is dangerous, for example, what if we
applied it to eyewitness accounts of the resurrection?
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson