>
> Oliver Beck (Oliver.Beck@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de) wrote, in reply to Randy
> and Glenn's discussion, that:
>
> > First, it is not only an interpretation of the bible. The bible speaks for
> > itself.
>
> Sometimes not very clearly. That's why there are hundreds of different
> Christian denominations all claiming Scriptural reasons for their differing
> beliefs (Sprinkle or immersion? Tongues or no tongues? Premillenial or
> postmillenial? ad infinitum...)
Sometimes not, I agree. But there are many clear teachings which are not
accepted because of tradition, presupositions and so on. And it is sinful
man who is very often not ready to accept what God says to him, because he
wants tp do his own will and is to proud to admit an error, is fearing men
and so on.
But God wnats us to obey his word and therefore it must be clear, unless
we would not know how to please God. There are some passages which are not
easy to understand, but if I read the Bible and I understand what is
meant I am not allowed to say: There may be another possible
interpretation. This is especially important on yhe narratives in the
Bible. And so I don't see any possibility to understand the Bible within
an evolutionary framework.
> > Second : What do you see which is incompatible with this 'interpretation'
> > of the bible ?
>
> Glenn's written reams and reams of material on the problems with young-earth
> creationism. As a geologist myself (and an Evangelical Christian), let me
> add also that the idea of a young earth or a recent global flood is totally
> unsupported by what we see when we go out and study real rocks in the field.
I have read many posts of Glenn, but the most are on the ancient humans.
In this topic I do agree with his classifications well. The only problem
is the dating question. And there he has seldom given, as far as I
remember, the method with which the dating has been done. And only values
without the method by which they were obtained are useless.
> > It seems to me you don't make any difference between what the bible is
> > saying and the theories which YECs have built on it. One should always
> > distinguish between the facts taught by the bible and the scientific
> > theories by which we want to describe the facts of nature according to the
> > bible. The direct creation of everything is an example of the former, the
> > water canopy around the earth before the flood of the latter.
>
> What if the "facts" taught by the Bible disagree with the "facts" of
> nature that we observer? As a student of physics, do you ascribe to the
> rather clearly taught Biblical cosmology which teaches that the sky is
> solid, the earth is on pillars, etc.?
I do not believe in this 'biblical cosmology'. I think there is a
difference. In physics we deal with observations and describe how the
things are. In htis the Bible has no interest which is not to say that
what is written isn't true, but that the Bible describes natural processes
phenomenologically and gives no description of the behind lying laws of
nature. As i am informed most if not all of the quotations from where this
'biblical cosmology' is derived are poetic passages in Scripture where
normally images play a great role. Look for example at psalm 23 where the
figurative sense of poesy is obvious.
But evolution and the like theories do belong to another type of science.
I call this the study of history of nature as opposed to physics as study
of nature. In this type we cannot repeat guided experiments but must
interpret the data which we have required. In physics, there is no problem
with the assumption that God does not interfere, but in the historical
sciences, both natural and human history, this assumption equals a
naturalist worldview. In most cases this will make no difference because
God was only guiding but there are also some events which do not fit into
the 'non-interventionism', miracles for example.
Therefore can't be any difference between what the Bible says and our
observations. And if one looks thoroughly into the scientific facts
without such philosophical assumptions I am sure one will find the error.
> Once again, I disagree strongly with the commonly cited statement by
> young-earth creationists that there's a "clear meaning" of Scripture.
> There's no such thing and even in the young-earth creationist camp there
> are disagreements about various interpretations of passages (Young-earth
> creationism as it exists today has drawn largely from the work of Seventh-
> Day Adventist George McCready Price -- do Adventists and Evangelicals agree
> on the "clear meaning" of Scripture?).
>
> We ALL agree that God is the Creator. If that were the only issue then
> there would be nothing more to discuss, but you are well aware that this
> is NOT the issue here.
>
i'm sorry i've no more time yet to answer the rest of your mail. I hope i
will have it later.
Oliver Beck
student of physics