[
Replying to post 4 by bjs]
Well explained bjs; the question I was answering is
what methodology would be used to choose, given a choice, as to which interpretation is true. (not how do we prove the bible is true).
Given that the book can be interpreted in many ways when it touches on science and we have relevant scientific data, then what we know to be true about the physical world would obviously have a bearing
on which interpretation we favor. It might not be paramount, that would depend on the context, but all things being equal, it seems logical and reasonable to favor the one that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world.
An example comes to mind of Jesus' parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. On fire in "hell" the rich man request a single drop of water to relieve his agony.
A drop of water would evaporate long before it could provide any relief if an individual was literally on fire and that water would do nothing to relieve the sufferer. Those are scientific facts. So faced with a choice between this being a literal narrative of a historical even or a parable (a story), the reasonable conclusion is that it is a parable.
We make these interpretational "choices" all the time in literature when faced with combinations of history, fact, symbolism, metaphor, and poetry... we do it in life if we have any use for language automatically.
A woman may say of her the father of her children "
He's my rock" few people would wonder how a man can also be a slab of granite and conclude she must be mad or bad. They just have to know enough about biology that rocks cannot inpregnate women. Thus given the choice between is she speaing literally or figuratively, it seems reasonable, given our knowledge of the natural world (and language), to chose the latter.
Circular: Don't you have to believe first?
One doesn't have to decide FIRST that the woman in my illustration isn't mad to appy logic, any more than one has to accept the bible as God's word before one can make reasonable biblical interpretation, one doesn't even have to believe in God, only accept that the writers did. The correct interpretation would be the interpretation intended by the author and a knowledge of the natural world is no hinderence in that.
JW