Many years later, however, something very special happened. Jesus,
as the divine "author behind the author" had the authority to assign
a second meaning (i.e. the serpent on the pole represented His being
lifted up to provide eternal life to those who will look to Him and
be saved) to that passage. Assigning the second, Messianic meaning
would, IMHO, have been inappropriate for any interpreter prior to the
ministry of Christ on earth. Yes, God had it in mind from the very
beginning. However, we had no legitimate way of knowing that until
He chose to reveal it through the words of Christ (or some other
prophet, duly recorded in Scripture.)
How would I apply this to science in the Bible? Actually, I wasn't
addressing that aspect of your previous note. I was addressing the
idea of several people reading the same passage and getting various
"interpretations." However, I'll try to address this question.
A consistent hermeneutic will have a consistent, underlying statement
of philosophy, or "worldview." Mine is pretty simple. The Bible,
correctly interpreted, is infallible in its original form, concerning
any and ALL subjects it touches -- regardless of how seemingly
peripheral this touch may be. Further, it is absolute in its authority
over me, my life, and any area of study I may pursue.
This, then, leads to a hermeneutical application. I take the Bible
literally unless I have specific, obvious cause not to do so. The
problem, then, is what constitutes "specific, obvious cause." If I
consider Isa 55:12, for example, it says this:
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace:
the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you
into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap
their hands. (KJV)
I don't expect hills to be "singing" as I know singing (I'm a trained
classical tenor) or for trees to be clapping their hands. The former do
not have vocal chords and the latter don't have hands (except for
banana trees.) I know these things because I have some knowledge of the
nature of trees, hills, clapping and singing. Yes, this is bringing a
bit of scientific knowledge (knowledge gained through observation and
drawing conclusions based on those observations) into play as a tool for
interpreting the Bible.
The problem is, then, deciding what is "specific, obvious cause" and what
is not. That which is obvious to me, might not be so obvious to you. A
case in point would be the age of the universe. Most geologists would
probably affirm that the data on this is pretty "obvious." However, for
the layman, it may not be nearly so obvious to him. Certainly, it is
somewhat less obvious for both of them than clapping trees and singing
hills. Okay, so where's the line? Is it somewhere between the two? Is
it to one side or the other of them both?
Because I believe (based on Romans 1) that God has revealed Himself both
in His Word and in His creation (the "dual revelation"), I will expect
them to be consistent with each other. Therefore, I accept legitimate
scientific information and allow it to assist me in my attempts to give
Biblical interpretations. While YEC allows for a much simpler Biblical
hermeneutic, Occam wasn't an inspired writer!
Well, I've gone on long enough. I'll turn this over to others more
qualified to pick this up than I. Please blame all unclear thoughts and
misspellings on the fact that it is approximately 4 a.m. as I write this
tome!
Blessings,
jbt
At 11:04 PM 12/20/96 -0800, you wrote:
>John,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement, but I don't
>think I quite understand your second one. What exactly do you mean by
>deity and authors having the authority to assign secondary meanings to
>their work? Do you mean that they there is a superficial meaning and
>a deeper underlying one? I'm sure that many authors do that, but how
>exactly does that relate to what we were talking about? How would you
>apply this to the science in the Bible issue? I'd be interested in
>hearing what you would have to say about that.