The Bible and Science

[The Tanager]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

[2timothy316]

Lets take a look at two examples that speak of the same thing but in different ways.

The Earth
There is metaphorical explanation in the Bible. Example: 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them."
Then there are direct explanation in the Bible. Example: In Job 26:7 says, “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

So one says that the Earth is on pillars and the other says the Earth hangs on nothing. Context is important. In 1 Samuel 2:8 we see in context that it is speaking not really speaking about Earth or its creation but how He supports everything and everyone. It is through Him things thrive or not. The Earth itself is no exception. Yet in Job 26:7 it is directly speaking about the details of creation and how wondrous they are.

To me personally the Bible is one book of truth and the natural world around us is also a book of truth. They compliment and describe each other.

However, people interpret both where they shouldn't or take something literally when they shouldn't. Mostly so they can prooftext their debate argument. Atheist will use 1 Samuel 2:8 to prove the Bible is a book of ridiculous myths. Creationist will try and prove the ridiculous claim that in Genesis the 1 and 2 chapters the Earth was made in 6 literal days. People also try interpret science discoveries. A group of scientist make a new lifeform and atheists will try to claim this is proof there is no God. But that is not what the experiment wasn't trying to prove or disprove. An evangelical might say that the reason a city was decimated by a hurricane is because it's full of sin. When actually it is just a storm following the laws of physics.

Folks are so ready to see what makes science and the Bible different when in reality without the interpretations and dogma colored glasses, they work really well with each other.

[Miles]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

When the Bible makes a statement that happens to be in agreement with science I don't regard it as making any kind of scientific claim. Wouldn't any honest and sincere book do as much in the course of its presentation; its statements being in agreement with scientific knowledge? Sure they would. However, when such a statement conflicts with scientific knowledge or even common sense, I typically look at it as folklore gone amiss; such as Jesus walking on water, or feeding thousands of men and many women using only five loaves of bread and two fish, or Joshua making the Sun stop in its orbit for a full day.

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

Hardly. The Bible actually does get some things right: fish do live in water, some tress do bear fruit, morning does follow night, and Pontius Pilate was a governor of Judaea.

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

Don't know about using the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get a message across, but the Bible was concocted so as to scare people into fearing the afterlife, and then offering up a solution to these fears if they obey what its salesmen tell them is a foolproof remedy. Plus a little $$ if ya got it.

4. Something else

As for the approach I take when looking at the Bible and science, I find it necessary to be wary of the Bible's exaggerations, falsehoods, silliness, distortions, contradictions, mistakes, misstatement, deceptions, etc. etc. which are all wrapped in a very tall tale. Whereas I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence. A branch of knowledge that deals with facts and truths that are systematically arranged, and showing the operation of the general laws of nature.

,

[theophile]

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

I'm not sure the options you suggest are mutually exclusive. I would say a little bit of 1, 2, 3 and 4...

3 is probably closest to what I would say though. To put it otherwise, I would say that the bible is ultimately religion / fiction (it is a made up system), and as such is a different domain than science, even though it utilizes scientific things such as history and cosmology in its narratives. This doesn't make it science but it does make it vulnerable to scientific dispute...

That said, I don't think the bible should be dismissed on account of its scientific disparity. The maxims that the bible teaches are more important than the historical facts it gets wrong. And its concepts, although metaphorical and fictionally represented, still have reality to them. Concepts such as God. (I don't believe there was a God who actually created the world in the way that Genesis says, but I do think the God of Genesis is real, and that there is such a God out there...)

This lets me hold both the bible and science in the full regard appropriate to each.

[The Tanager]

Lets take a look at two examples that speak of the same thing but in different ways.

The Earth
There is metaphorical explanation in the Bible. Example: 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them."
Then there are direct explanation in the Bible. Example: In Job 26:7 says, “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

So one says that the Earth is on pillars and the other says the Earth hangs on nothing. Context is important. In 1 Samuel 2:8 we see in context that it is speaking not really speaking about Earth or its creation but how He supports everything and everyone. It is through Him things thrive or not. The Earth itself is no exception. Yet in Job 26:7 it is directly speaking about the details of creation and how wondrous they are.

I definitely think context is important, but I’m not sure this is as clean as you are making it out to be. Job 26:11, just 4 verses later in the same context, speaks of the pillars of the heavens. Job 9:6, which seems to be in the same kind of context of the conversations between Job and his 3 friends, speaks of the Earth’s pillars trembling. In Job 37:18 the skies are said to be as hard as a bronze mirror.

[The Tanager]

However, when such a statement conflicts with scientific knowledge or even common sense, I typically look at it as folklore gone amiss; such as Jesus walking on water, or feeding thousands of men and many women using only five loaves of bread and two fish, or Joshua making the Sun stop in its orbit for a full day.

…

As for the approach I take when looking at the Bible and science, I find it necessary to be wary of the Bible's exaggerations, falsehoods, silliness, distortions, contradictions, mistakes, misstatement, deceptions, etc. etc. which are all wrapped in a very tall tale. Whereas I expect science to be a consistent, testable, honest, systematic, analytical, factual, specialized, methodical, cumulative, provisional, verifiable, and open approach to finding the truths of existence. A branch of knowledge that deals with facts and truths that are systematically arranged, and showing the operation of the general laws of nature.

What is the consistent, testable, honest, systematic, etc. support that miracles such as you describe above did not happen?

[The Tanager]

3 is probably closest to what I would say though. To put it otherwise, I would say that the bible is ultimately religion / fiction (it is a made up system), and as such is a different domain than science, even though it utilizes scientific things such as history and cosmology in its narratives. This doesn't make it science but it does make it vulnerable to scientific dispute...

That said, I don't think the bible should be dismissed on account of its scientific disparity. The maxims that the bible teaches are more important than the historical facts it gets wrong. And its concepts, although metaphorical and fictionally represented, still have reality to them. Concepts such as God. (I don't believe there was a God who actually created the world in the way that Genesis says, but I do think the God of Genesis is real, and that there is such a God out there...)

This lets me hold both the bible and science in the full regard appropriate to each.

Are you saying it is always wrong in its scientific and historical claims? If it is sometimes correct, wouldn’t those parts “make it science” for at least those parts?

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible is not a science manual and often presents allegory, illustration and poetic language that should not be taken literally, ("sunrise" and "sunset", four "corners" of the earth, etc) but when it does touch in literal terms on scientific or historical detail it is always 100% accurate.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[Miles]

AH, old Henry Morris once more rises from the muck along the side of the road.



"Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist and engineer." [And a hydraulic engineer no less.]

"Morris has been called "the father of modern creation science", and "arguably the most influential creationist of the 20th century." Morris helped create the modern school of thought based on a belief in biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis." [Because who better to expound on biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis than a hydraulic engineer.]

"Many in the scientific community have said that Morris' representation of evolution as a complete religious system is a straw man. In particular, Massimo Pigliucci criticized Morris' omission of material that interfered with his "mission" and "beliefs". Pigliucci also criticized Morris' interpretation of thermodynamics.'[And why shouldn't a hydraulic engineer misinterpret thermodynamics? It's little different than a four year-old not knowing a verb from an adverb.]

Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources. [Anybody surprised? I'm not]

Morris' book Scientific Creationism (1974 and 1984), according to Herman Kirkpatrick, "is not very convincing evidence to support the recent creation of the earth". Thomas Wheeler, Professor of biochemistry at University of Louisville, reviewed the second edition and concluded, "Scientific Creationism cannot be recommended for use in public school classes, or indeed anyone interested in learning science". Wheeler cited what he claimed was Morris' misunderstanding of science, appeals to religious prejudice, misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, omission of opposing science, double standards in evidence, "absurd conclusions," inappropriate and misidentified sources, attacks on scientists, using discredited arguments, and "silly calculations". [And why wouldn't Morris misunderstand science? He's a biased engineer not a scientist. And why wouldn't he appeal to religious prejudice? He's a theist on a mission to sell tripe. And tripe has always been a tough sell.]

"Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources. For example, in one instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago." Geologist John G. Solum has criticized the work for being inaccurate. Solum said "Whitcomb and Morris are mistaken about the nature of the rocks associated with thrust faults. Their claim about fossils is based on a Young Earth creationist misunderstanding of how rocks are dated relative to each other, and how the geologic column was constructed." Additionally, Solum said "Morris' explanation of relative dating is not merely 'somewhat oversimplified' - it is entirely incorrect." [Again, Anybody surprised? I'm certainly not]

Morris's book, The Genesis Flood, coauthored by John C. Whitcomb, was very influential on modern creationist belief, and by the time of Morris's death, it was in its 44th printing and sold 250,000 English copies.[Never underestimate the gullibility of needy Christians]
Source: Wikipedia

.

[2timothy316]

Lets take a look at two examples that speak of the same thing but in different ways.

The Earth
There is metaphorical explanation in the Bible. Example: 1 Samuel 2:8 says, "For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he has set the world upon them."
Then there are direct explanation in the Bible. Example: In Job 26:7 says, “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

So one says that the Earth is on pillars and the other says the Earth hangs on nothing. Context is important. In 1 Samuel 2:8 we see in context that it is speaking not really speaking about Earth or its creation but how He supports everything and everyone. It is through Him things thrive or not. The Earth itself is no exception. Yet in Job 26:7 it is directly speaking about the details of creation and how wondrous they are.

I definitely think context is important, but I’m not sure this is as clean as you are making it out to be. Job 26:11, just 4 verses later in the same context, speaks of the pillars of the heavens. Job 9:6, which seems to be in the same kind of context of the conversations between Job and his 3 friends, speaks of the Earth’s pillars trembling. In Job 37:18 the skies are said to be as hard as a bronze mirror.

Its clean if a one accepts both scientific discoveries and the Bible. If one reads the Bible expecting the Bible and science to conflict they will find it. Just like a person that thinks storms are made to punish the sinners. People see what they want to see and find what they want to find.

Pillars are supports. God made all the things that makes the sky/heavens possible. In science we know what those things are. The Bible puts things in simple terms that all can understand. Its not meant to be taken literally. A person that accept the natural world and the Bible will understand this. A person that wants to see a book a of myths, well, will see a book of myths. A person that doesn't accept the discoveries of the natural world will think the pillars are literal.

As far as Job 37:18, is in question form. This scripture can't mean that it talking about making a the sky out of metal from the fact that the word “skies” here comes from a word (shaʹchaq) also rendered “film of dust” or “clouds”. Compare (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11). So, the question is, can mankind make the spread out the sky for a planet using simple tools like we were spreading out a metal shield or metal mirror using dust or clouds?

I don't go into the Bible looking to prove my own agenda. I don't use it to explain things to atheists who have no desire to understand spiritual things. And I don't use science to explain things to those that think the Earth we made in six literal days. I use both to explain things to those that are humble enough to know that not everything is known about either the Bible or the natural world. A truly open mind that isn't dogmatic.

I find it quite interesting that people find it preposterous that a person fed thousands of people with a few fish when there is at least some record of thousands of people to witness that. Yet NO one has seen autogeration/abiogenesis happen. Not even a single recorded witness. But they will believe in autogeration.