# General Revelation Interpreting Special



## Afterthought

Ordinarly, we interpret general revelation by Scripture. But to what extent does general revelation interpret Scripture? For example, to understand what certain words are or certain objects are, we need general revelation, so there does seem to be some interpretive role. For another, there are various measures given in Scripture. One famous one that unbelievers have pulled out is that the bible gets the value of pi wrong. Usually, the response I've heard is that the bible was using round numbers, so of course the value of pi would be approximate only. However, this response assumes that what we know about pi from general revelation is correct, and thus uses general revelation to interpret Scripture.

For another, the immutability of species was believed in for a long time, on theological grounds (I think Thomas Aquinas first argued this?). However, once Darwin came along, immutability of species was no longer seen as true, and so the understanding of theology changed accordingly. For another, geocentrism, which after science did its thing, the relevant passages were then interpreted heliocentrically by and large. Same for the old earth/young earth debate, and the creation/evolution debate.

Perhaps in order for general revelation to interpret Scripture (rather than Scripture interpret general revelation), the general revelation needs to be of a certain kind? Or maybe there's a conflation of categories here (between science, observation, and mathematics/reasoning) that can explain this? Surely we can trust more or less what we observe, since we can trust our senses. But since we need to trust our inductive reasoning skills, there must be an extent to which we can trust inductions from what we observe too? Beyond that though, it seems anything else must be based on hypothesis/testing, though whether that is reliable enough or not, I'm not sure (the problem, of course, being that such is how the theory of evolution is supported, but also how molecular theory was initially supported). Or maybe there is no definite way to tell when general revlation interprets Scripture and when Scripture interprets general revelation, but rather, there is a complex interplay between the two?


----------



## Loopie

From my understanding of both Augustine and Calvin, they had no problem incorporating knowledge from General Revelation in furthering their understanding of Scripture. The one example that comes to mind is the Crucifixion. The Bible never describes exactly how the Roman Empire used crucifixion, or the entire historical context surrounding the act of crucifying someone and how it was viewed by the general populace. Other, non-Scriptural sources can certainly be used to give us a broader and better understanding of what is already revealed to us in Scripture.

I would also add that the relationship between General Revelation and Special Revelation is such that they will never contradict each other. If Scripture is truly the word of God, then logically the world around us will line up and harmonize with what the Bible proclaim. As for those who argue that General Revelation (sometimes referred to as Science) contradicts Scripture, they ought to first humble themselves and determine if their scientific claims are truly accurate, and truly contradictory to Scripture, before jumping to that conclusion.

Thoughts?


----------



## MW

"General revelation" will need to be defined. The word "revelation" might refer to the act of revealing or to the thing revealed. Further, if this revelation is "divine" it should be pointed out that it is not an inherent sense in men but something which must itself be interpreted in order to make sense of it. Then, to add another layer of complexity, the "generality" of this revelation must be such that it is available to all men, and not merely to the analytical thought of the west.


----------



## Afterthought

Thank you for the comments!



Loopie said:


> I would also add that the relationship between General Revelation and Special Revelation is such that they will never contradict each other. If Scripture is truly the word of God, then logically the world around us will line up and harmonize with what the Bible proclaim. As for those who argue that General Revelation (sometimes referred to as Science) contradicts Scripture, they ought to first humble themselves and determine if their scientific claims are truly accurate, and truly contradictory to Scripture, before jumping to that conclusion.


Some good thoughts!

Something has to give way: either one's interpretation of special revelation, or one's interpretation of general revelation. From the examples I've given above and which you have provided, sometimes, it seems, it is acceptable to let one's interpretation of special revelation give way to one's interpretation of general revelation. But when and why?

The tricky thing about this proposed solution (though it is the obvious and perhaps only solution) is the difficulty of checking whether a scientific conclusion really is accurate (e.g., does only observation count? May we add in hypothetico-deductive conclusions? What assumptions may we make?). According to scientific standards, some such conclusions, which we would ordinarily see as against Scripture, are indeed "accurate" (though I know such are disputed by some on this board), which is why some have resorted to re-interpreting Scripture in light of the "general revelation" they have found....or have resorted to re-interpreting the "general revelation" in light of Scripture (e.g., "Creation science"). Perhaps we need something in science that necessarily contradicts Scripture (i.e., there are no other possible explanations)? Though the tricky thing there is that sometimes possible explanations exist, and we simply are not aware of them (I'm not sure that science could build up enough "necessity" to not have to deal with this point).

Apparently though, we need to loose science from meaning "general revelation" or perhaps even "interpretation of general revelation", cause there are other things out there (like mathematics or reasoning) that tend to be counted as interpretations of general revelation or general revelation itself.




armourbearer said:


> "General revelation" will need to be defined. The word "revelation" might refer to the act of revealing or to the thing revealed. Further, if this revelation is "divine" it should be pointed out that it is not an inherent sense in men but something which must itself be interpreted in order to make sense of it. Then, to add another layer of complexity, the "generality" of this revelation must be such that it is available to all men, and not merely to the analytical thought of the west.


Hmm. These are some good points. With respect to definition, I think the things I'm interested in the OP are the things revealed.

With respect to the last point, that is what I would have thought, but I also have heard (both on this board and elsewhere, usually lectures concerning Van Til's thought) that everything we know has been revealed by God, whether through special or general revelation. If that is the case, then all facts we have discovered outside of special revelation must be a part of general revelation (as things revealed). If that is so, then there are facts that have been discovered by Western thought, which are not readily available to others. So it seems then that either not all facts are part of general revelation (and not all facts are revealed by God) or general revelation isn't entirely available to all.

With respect to the middle point, I suppose we must then classify all our methods of gathering facts as interpretations of general revelation (even methods that produce necessary logical truths or truths of mathematics, like the value of pi?)? Unless not all facts are in general revelation, in which case only some of our methods or all of our methods only some of the time are interpretations of general revelation. (Just seeking clarity)


----------



## Afterthought

Afterthought said:


> With respect to the last point, that is what I would have thought, but I also have heard (both on this board and elsewhere, usually lectures concerning Van Til's thought) that everything we know has been revealed by God, whether through special or general revelation. If that is the case, then all facts we have discovered outside of special revelation must be a part of general revelation (as things revealed). If that is so, then there are facts that have been discovered by Western thought, which are not readily available to others. So it seems then that either not all facts are part of general revelation (and not all facts are revealed by God) or general revelation isn't entirely available to all.
> 
> With respect to the middle point, I suppose we must then classify all our methods of gathering facts as interpretations of general revelation (even methods that produce necessary logical truths or truths of mathematics, like the value of pi?)? Unless not all facts are in general revelation, in which case only some of our methods or all of our methods only some of the time are interpretations of general revelation. (Just seeking clarity)



With some further thought, it seems most of my questions in the above post boil down to two; and strangely, I think that the second question is related to another question I've had concerning the place of history and bible interpretation... Perhaps that should be saved for some other time though.

(1) What is the relationship between human sciences, observation, and reasoning to general revelation? (e.g., are they interpretations of general revelation? Do they have nothing to do with general revelation per se, though the facts they find may reveal things?) (2) When are we allowed to use our knowledge of the natural world (for whatever their relationship is to general revelation, surely human methodologies for gathering facts are interpretations of the natural world?) to interpret Scripture (which seems to be the question I am asking in the OP)?

It seems to me that depending on the answer to the first question, either all facts are revealed facts, or only some of them are revealed facts; I am not sure which is correct, or if there's a third way though? Perhaps in saying that all facts are "revealed facts", we are speaking improperly, referring to the things the facts reveal rather than the mode (general revelation) by which we know the facts?


----------



## jwithnell

You are raising a false dilemma here. God has chosen to reveal himself in the light of nature and in the Holy Scriptures. One should not be viewed as superior to the other. They serve different purposes: one to reveal the glory of all men as to leave them inexcusable; the other to give sufficient knowledge of God for salvation. I would not study an anticline in a mountain to understand soteriology. I would not look to the Bible to give the the molecular weight of barium. Both inform me every day in diverse ways. Both leave me in awe and wonder before God.


----------



## Afterthought

jwithnell said:


> You are raising a false dilemma here.


Sorry for not understanding, but I'm a little confused here, cause I have raised quite a few dilemmas in this thread that may be false! To what are you responding (What is the false dilemma you see?)? Are you responding to the claim that either all facts are revealed or only some are (though I think it may be safe to say that all facts are revelatory); are you responding to the problem raised in the OP that when it comes to interpreting Scripture, either special revelation or what we know outside of special revelation must give way in the process of making our interpretation; or are you responding to something else?


----------



## MW

If we take Van Til's model, then general revelation was never intended to exist without special revelation, e.g., Genesis 2. Further, there are no brute facts, but only God-interpreted facts.

Lexicography and semantics of Hebrew and Greek presuppose and depend upon the facts and the phenomena of special revelation. So it is going to be hard to argue that these fall neatly into the category of general revelation. Certainly the interpreter will be bound to the particular theory of linguistics which has convinced him, but I do not think it can be proven that the linguistic theory has not been affected by prior religious commitments. I suppose that is why the "hermeneutical spiral" is a widely accepted theory today, noting that we bring our previous experience of Scripture with us into our reading of it.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> Something has to give way: either one's interpretation of special revelation, or one's interpretation of general revelation. From the examples I've given above and which you have provided, sometimes, it seems, it is acceptable to let one's interpretation of special revelation give way to one's interpretation of general revelation. But when and why?
> 
> The tricky thing about this proposed solution (though it is the obvious and perhaps only solution) is the difficulty of checking whether a scientific conclusion really is accurate (e.g., does only observation count? May we add in hypothetico-deductive conclusions? What assumptions may we make?). According to scientific standards, some such conclusions, which we would ordinarily see as against Scripture, are indeed "accurate" (though I know such are disputed by some on this board), which is why some have resorted to re-interpreting Scripture in light of the "general revelation" they have found....or have resorted to re-interpreting the "general revelation" in light of Scripture (e.g., "Creation science"). Perhaps we need something in science that necessarily contradicts Scripture (i.e., there are no other possible explanations)? Though the tricky thing there is that sometimes possible explanations exist, and we simply are not aware of them (I'm not sure that science could build up enough "necessity" to not have to deal with this point).
> 
> Apparently though, we need to loose science from meaning "general revelation" or perhaps even "interpretation of general revelation", cause there are other things out there (like mathematics or reasoning) that tend to be counted as interpretations of general revelation or general revelation itself.



Raymond,

I do not think one's interpretation of either has to 'give way', unless of course you have run into some sort of an actual contradiction. I honestly do not believe that General Revelation ever contradicts Special Revelation, and so I never actually feel that I have to sacrifice one for the other. Certainly we must always ensure that we utilize proper hermeneutical methods when interpreting Special Revelation. We must also remain humble regarding our 'understanding' of science and the universe, recognizing that there are many things we simply might not ever exhaustively comprehend.

One example I want to bring to mind is the concept that the sun moves around the earth. Could the Bible be interpreted in such a way that it supports the argument that the sun revolves around the earth? Yes it could. But does the Bible allow for ONLY that understanding of our solar system? Not at all. Just because the sun is described as moving across the sky does not necessarily mean that the Bible is teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. Through science we have come to recognize that the earth actually rotates on its axis, which is why the sun appears to 'move across' the sky. But this does not make God a liar.

So in the above scenario, if I change my position and say that I now affirm that the earth revolves around the sun, what have I done? I have indeed changed my interpretation of Scripture, BUT my first interpretation of Scripture was a bit faulty. I was restricting the actual words of the Bible in such a way that they, in my mind, only allowed for a 'sun moving around the earth' understanding of the solar system. Quite simply, as God has revealed to me more things regarding his beautiful and intricate universe, I have come to realize just how little I truly know. Such a situation also helps me to become more mature in my interpretation of Scripture by keeping me humble. Previously I might have fought tooth and nail against someone who was saying that the earth moved around the sun, because I thought that they were contradicting the clear and natural reading of Scripture. Now, after having realized that I was restricting what the Bible was saying based upon my own personal bias, I am now a more humble person, recognizing that I cannot necessarily be dogmatic about something that I do not fully understand.

I agree that the term 'General Revelation' has to be defined properly. I am here at this point only talking about the 'knowledge' that we derive from examining God's creation. I do believe that we as humans are learning more about the universe as time goes on, but I do not think for one moment that any truth that God reveals to us through science and examination is going to contradict what God has already revealed in Scripture.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> I do not think one's interpretation of either has to 'give way', unless of course you have run into some sort of an actual contradiction.


Sorry if I was not clear. The "contradiction" comes from competing interpretations, not the revelation itself (as the rest of your paragraph here seems to talk about?). Though, I'm not sure that the interpretations need to formally contradict each other, so much as displace each other so that they are not both possible (like the example I gave above with the number "pi")--I'm not sure if that requires a formal contradiction or not; I'd need to think about that some more.

As for the geocentrism example, although in your opinion, you originally made a faulty interpretation, it still remains that you corrected your interpretation by an interpretation of something outside of Scripture (having discovered it was faulty by means of that other interpretation, you looked at Scripture again and decided that your interpretation was faulty, and so it "gave way" to your interpretation of the natural world; that's all I mean by "give way."), so it seems to me your interpretation of Scripture still gave way to an interpretation of the natural world.



Loopie said:


> I do believe that we as humans are learning more about the universe as time goes on, but I do not think for one moment that any truth that God reveals to us through science and examination is going to contradict what God has already revealed in Scripture.


It is one thing to say that general revelation will not contradict special revelation and another thing to say this. While I am confident of the former, I am not of the latter, unless the latter actually is part of general revelation. This seems to be one of the key issues (partly asked in (1) in my recent post above): Does God reveal scientific truths? Why, why not? And if God does, and if scientific facts are not general revelation, what sort of revelation are they?


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> If we take Van Til's model, then general revelation was never intended to exist without special revelation, e.g., Genesis 2. Further, there are no brute facts, but only God-interpreted facts.
> 
> Lexicography and semantics of Hebrew and Greek presuppose and depend upon the facts and the phenomena of special revelation. So it is going to be hard to argue that these fall neatly into the category of general revelation. Certainly the interpreter will be bound to the particular theory of linguistics which has convinced him, but I do not think it can be proven that the linguistic theory has not been affected by prior religious commitments. I suppose that is why the "hermeneutical spiral" is a widely accepted theory today, noting that we bring our previous experience of Scripture with us into our reading of it.


Thank you. I suppose this may be why I have much difficulty with the question of when we are allowed to use facts of the natural world when interpreting Scripture: it's too complex to answer completely. And it appears even my first question, of the relation between human discoveries and general revelation is too complex, since on Van Til's model, these human discoveries of Creation--whether they are actually a part of general revelation or not (and I do not know whether they are or not)--are not designed to operate independently of special revelation; but then, because of the "spiral" you mention, interpretations of special revelation cannot operate independently of the discoveries of the world we have made, and so it seems even this question is too complex to answer completely.

Edit2: Actually, it appears I misunderstood what you said. My apologies! I'll need to give that one a think some more, but even if semantics and lexicography cannot be used as examples in the OP of "general revelation" interpreting special revelation, there are other examples that don't fall into those categories. I know some would say that general revelation is only concerned with revealing God, and so human discoveries are not a part of general revelation; and so facts discovered by that method aren't actually revealed, though those facts are revelatory (they reveal God). Since there are no brute facts, is that how facts that aren't technically revealed in general revelation can be considered to be revealed facts and not revelatory facts only? And since they are revelatory facts, they are considred to be (though improperly speaking) part of general revelation?

Edit: As an aside, I wonder a bit about "brute facts." While I can acknowledge that no facts make sense without an interpretive framework, it initially seems there are "brute facts" in the sense of being "there." For example, if a rock weighs a certain amount, then that it seems to be a "brute fact" that the rock weighs that amount. However, the fact is meaningless without an interpretive framework. But then again, how do we know it weighs a certain amount? That too requires an interpretive framework to interpret the "raw data" that we find to mean that "the rock weighs this amount." Is there a circle here too, or does it terminate on some brutest of "brute facts" (while acknowledging that even this brutest of brute facts requires an interpretive framework for anyone to make sense of it)? I know some would certainly say there is a circle here, and it seems to be a similar circle to the "spiral."


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> As for the geocentrism example, although in your opinion, you originally made a faulty interpretation, it still remains that you corrected your interpretation by an interpretation of something outside of Scripture (having discovered it was faulty by means of that other interpretation, you looked at Scripture again and decided that your interpretation was faulty, and so it "gave way" to your interpretation of the natural world; that's all I mean by "give way."), so it seems to me your interpretation of Scripture still gave way to an interpretation of the natural world.



You are right that I, in first advocating that the sun revolved around the earth, made an assumption about what the Bible was saying that later turned out to be false. In other words, the simplest, most natural reading of Scripture (from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about the solar system) seemed to be that the sun actually does move around the earth. But just because I find out later on that the earth is the one that moves does not mean that the Bible was ever in error. Remember, the original audience would have been a group of people who had very limited understanding of the solar system. 

I still have difficulty affirming that my interpretation of Scripture gave way to an interpretation of the natural world. Here is how I would word it:

My first interpretation from Scripture was based upon certain assumptions that I already had. My first interpretation from Scripture gave way to a second interpretation of Scripture. The second interpretation was based no longer upon those exact same assumptions, since those assumptions had now been proven wrong. Every person is going to have a certain set of assumptions that they bring to the table. No matter how 'knowledgeable' we might become, we will always bring SOME assumptions. But the assumptions that someone who lived 2,000 years ago brought to the table might be different than the assumptions that I bring to the table. 

Ultimately, I think it is important that we recognize what assumptions we have, so that we can be humble about them. We must do our best to never let our assumptions force Scripture to say something that it might not be saying.



Afterthought said:


> It is one thing to say that general revelation will not contradict special revelation and another thing to say this. While I am confident of the former, I am not of the latter, unless the latter actually is part of general revelation. This seems to be one of the key issues (partly asked in (1) in my recent post above): Does God reveal scientific truths? Why, why not? And if God does, and if scientific facts are not general revelation, what sort of revelation are they?



What is a scientific truth? Isn't science simply man's examination and exploration of God's creation? I do not for a second believe that science is diametrically opposed to God. Popular science, or secular science, is very much opposed to the Christian worldview, but that is because many unfounded assumptions are brought to the table. If by science we mean man's attempt to learn about what God has created, so that God might be glorified, then we are talking about something that is very good. 

Through continually examining the universe we have come to find out that the earth revolves around the sun. This is a 'scientific truth' that has been revealed to us by God. In fact, I believe that ALL truth that anyone ever has is revealed to them by God. Through various means, including things such as our five senses, God has revealed truths to all people. Does that help clarify my position?


----------



## Afterthought

Afterthought said:


> Edit: As an aside, I wonder a bit about "brute facts." While I can acknowledge that no facts make sense without an interpretive framework, it initially seems there are "brute facts" in the sense of being "there." For example, if a rock weighs a certain amount, then that it seems to be a "brute fact" that the rock weighs that amount. However, the fact is meaningless without an interpretive framework. But then again, how do we know it weighs a certain amount? That too requires an interpretive framework to interpret the "raw data" that we find to mean that "the rock weighs this amount." Is there a circle here too, or does it terminate on some brutest of "brute facts" (while acknowledging that even this brutest of brute facts requires an interpretive framework for anyone to make sense of it)? I know some would certainly say there is a circle here, and it seems to be a similar circle to the "spiral."


After (briefly) re-reading some of Van Til's and his interpreters' writings, I think Van Til would say that the circle does terminate: it terminates on God's interpretation of the fact (This may be the difference between this view of Van Til's and the kinds of relativism that claim facts are theory-laden; though humans have circularity, God provides the absolute interpretation that breaks the circle). Hence, even that brutest of brute facts is interpreted by God and has its own relation to the Creation that God has determined for it. So that brutest of brute facts isn't actually a brute fact. Van Til would also say we should interpret the facts the way God does. How that is supposed to be the case, I'm not sure, considering that even if all facts not in special revelation were things revealed in General Revelation, General Revelation needs interpretation; so I'm guessing the "re-interpretation" refers to interpreting according to a Christian framework, which we learn from Scripture. I'm not sure that this aspect of Van Til's view of facts allows for all facts to be revealed facts though, so it seems (to me) only somewhat relevant to the discussion. Though I feel like this is a somewhat important point to the two or three questions I raised; I'm just not putting it together yet.


----------



## Afterthought

I happened across this, which expresses some of the concerns I have with my question of the relation to human discovery and general revelation. I have no idea if what the article is promoting is correct (which is that facts of human discovery are not the things revealed in general revelation), but there it is. It's long, but the concerns relevant to this thread are near the beginning.



Loopie said:


> Ultimately, I think it is important that we recognize what assumptions we have, so that we can be humble about them. We must do our best to never let our assumptions force Scripture to say something that it might not be saying.


So basically, you are advocating a fallibilistic method of when we are allowed to let science question our assumptions that then result in a new interpretation of Scripture? Your later paragraph would explain why you would take this approach. It is no different from others who have rejected some things that you may actually hold to, believing that a science has shown one's initial assumptions to be false. Of course, you would simply say that they are wrong...but so would they. It would seem that those who have no access to Western science may forever make those wrong assumptions in interpreting Scripture, and so science is needed for a correct interpretation of Scripture. (Is that the case ordinarily anyway though, when it comes to background culture of Scripture in interpreting it?) But anyway, why is this an allowable method? Well, actually, you explain why below (which is also the same reason others give who hold that even more of mainstream science is correct than perhaps you might believe)...




Loopie said:


> Through continually examining the universe we have come to find out that the earth revolves around the sun. This is a 'scientific truth' that has been revealed to us by God. In fact, I believe that ALL truth that anyone ever has is revealed to them by God. Through various means, including things such as our five senses, God has revealed truths to all people. Does that help clarify my position?


Why do you believe that all truth is revealed by God? Is it general revelation? If so, why is it so unstable and unclear; why is general revelation something other than God revealing Himself in nature; and why aren't these facts accessible to everyone? If it is not general revelation, what is it and why do you believe it is revelation?



Loopie said:


> What is a scientific truth? Isn't science simply man's examination and exploration of God's creation? I do not for a second believe that science is diametrically opposed to God. Popular science, or secular science, is very much opposed to the Christian worldview, but that is because many unfounded assumptions are brought to the table. If by science we mean man's attempt to learn about what God has created, so that God might be glorified, then we are talking about something that is very good.


To hopefully clarify (and looking at my original response you are replying to, I worded it too strongly), by "scientific truths," I would use it in the broad sense for any human methodology of gathering knowledge about God's works of Creation and Providence. However, in the case of "science" in the sense we usually think of (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), which was what I was referring to initially by "scientific facts" (since such facts are the ones relevant to your hypothetical rejection of geocentrism), these result from a study of God's Creation under His ordinary governing of the world. Hence, it is inevitable that such science will conflict with things in Scripture, since God has not governed the world in an ordinary manner only; nevertheless, the conflict is resolved by recognizing that the two are getting at different aspects of reality.(e.g., Scripture giving the Divine perspective while science giving the perspective of second causes; or Scripture giving history while science giving the relations among second causes under ordinary Providential government)


----------



## MW

I think "science" must be given its rightful domain and permitted to explain to the best of its ability according to its own rules of interpretation the natural phenomena it investigates. This is important for a number of reasons. To mention one foremost biblical reason -- we cannot properly identify a supernatural act where there is a misunderstanding of natural phenomena. E.g., water into wine. What is water? what is wine? Witness the master's ordinary expectations and his pleasant surprise. The key, though, is to understand the limitations of science. When it is presented as an absolute perspective it exceeds its limitations, makes leaps of faith, and becomes a false religion which is nothing other than science falsely so-called.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> I think "science" must be given its rightful domain and permitted to explain to the best of its ability according to its own rules of interpretation the natural phenomena it investigates.


A side question I've wondered a bit since you and Turretin introduced me to this way of thinking about science: Is it fair to admit evolution as a scientific possibility, even probability? Unless of course there are problems with evolutionary theory within its own domain (or perhaps, metadomain, if there are philosophical issues) that would keep it from that status; in which case, I was thinking about making a separate thread concerning that topic (I and others at my school are going to have an opportunity to speak with a leading evolutionist philosophy of science professor). And is it a fair theological reflection that we can marvel at how God actually did make everything when compared to how things would have had to be if God chose to do so by the same methods He uses in ordinarily governing the world?


----------



## MW

The problem is with macro-evolution. The experts themselves admit to an insufficient record, numerous gaps, and multiple conjectures. The biblical doctrine of special creation still remains unchallenged from a scientific point of view. Moreover, the calculations of time and energy which are based on critical observation should give us greater appreciation for the miracle of creation. What would take a long time to produce in a natural way was brought into being in a moment. Just as the wine which our Lord produced for the feast would ordinarily have required a lengthy natural process. And, of course, a fundamental rule of science is that out of nothing nothing comes, so science should self-consciously limit its claims accordingly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> The problem is with macro-evolution. The experts themselves admit to an insufficient record, numerous gaps, and multiple conjectures. The biblical doctrine of special creation still remains unchallenged from a scientific point of view. Moreover, the calculations of time and energy which are based on critical observation should give us greater appreciation for the miracle of creation. What would take a long time to produce in a natural way was brought into being in a moment. Just as the wine which our Lord produced for the feast would ordinarily have required a lengthy natural process. And, of course, a fundamental rule of science is that out of nothing nothing comes, so science should self-consciously limit its claims accordingly.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> The problem is with macro-evolution. The experts themselves admit to an insufficient record, numerous gaps, and multiple conjectures. The biblical doctrine of special creation still remains unchallenged from a scientific point of view. Moreover, the calculations of time and energy which are based on critical observation should give us greater appreciation for the miracle of creation. What would take a long time to produce in a natural way was brought into being in a moment. Just as the wine which our Lord produced for the feast would ordinarily have required a lengthy natural process. And, of course, a fundamental rule of science is that out of nothing nothing comes, so science should self-consciously limit its claims accordingly.


Thank you. I'll have to look into those experts some more, and perhaps start that thread, since I had a few questions (well, more like "objections" such people might raise) concerning the philosophical aspects of the theory.



With respect to the thread's questions, so far it seems to me that...

(1) Science and other methods of human discovery are not general revelation
(2) They nevertheless get at facts about the world we live in, with respect to their various domains.
(3) These facts are revelatory of God (or more properly, God reveals Himself through all facts of nature, and so through these ones too). What they reveal is general revelation (general revelation in the sense of the things revealed by it). (1) - (3) show the relation of human discoveries to general revelation.


So if the above are correct, then that just leaves two questions. The first is: Are all truths/facts revealed? If they are, in what sense? And the second: To what extent are human discoveries allowed in the interpretation of Scripture? Is there ever a point where the human discoveries are allowed to change our interpretation? If so, when?

That second question seems to me to be connected to Van Til's view of facts, though I still haven't figured out how the pieces fit together, so I don't have a clear idea how it is.


----------



## jwithnell

> Science and other methods of human discovery are not general revelation


 I suppose this is so in the same way that hermeneutics is not scripture. We have methodology for approaching and understanding scripture. Science gives us methodology to understand the creation.



> Is there ever a point where the human discoveries are allowed to change our interpretation? If so, when?


In a sense, we make "human discoveries" in scripture and we make "human discoveries" in science. We can, and have been wrong in both cases. The key here is to remember that there can be no true contradiction between general and special revelation. Both are revealed by God who cannot contradict himself. If there _appears_ to be a conflict between the two, our interpretation is wrong of scripture, science, or both. History is scattered with examples of our errors in both respects.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> So basically, you are advocating a fallibilistic method of when we are allowed to let science question our assumptions that then result in a new interpretation of Scripture? Your later paragraph would explain why you would take this approach. It is no different from others who have rejected some things that you may actually hold to, believing that a science has shown one's initial assumptions to be false. Of course, you would simply say that they are wrong...but so would they. It would seem that those who have no access to Western science may forever make those wrong assumptions in interpreting Scripture, and so science is needed for a correct interpretation of Scripture. (Is that the case ordinarily anyway though, when it comes to background culture of Scripture in interpreting it?) But anyway, why is this an allowable method? Well, actually, you explain why below (which is also the same reason others give who hold that even more of mainstream science is correct than perhaps you might believe)...



I disagree. The reason I do so is because some of those things that others reject (God's creation of the universe) and accept (evolutionary processes) are just theories, and not proven at all. You can actually demonstrate that the earth revolves around the sun. Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Why not? So again, we must always take science with a grain of salt, and recognize its strengths and its limitations. Science has not yet demonstrated that anything affirmed by Scripture was false. There are many 'theories' that go contrary to Scripture, but those are still just theories and guesses.




Afterthought said:


> Why do you believe that all truth is revealed by God? Is it general revelation? If so, why is it so unstable and unclear; why is general revelation something other than God revealing Himself in nature; and why aren't these facts accessible to everyone? If it is not general revelation, what is it and why do you believe it is revelation?



Because anything that is true is only true because God has made it true. Everything that you or I have ever come to know or experience is all part of God's eternal decree. If you know anything at all, it is because God enabled you to know.

The 'facts' of general revelations are accessible to everyone. If I wanted to I could go out there and try to 'reinvent the wheel' or try to prove something that has already been proven. Typically I just take others' word for it unless I consider it something worth researching on my own. I simply do not have time to prove that the circumference of a circle is Pi times the diameter. I figured I would trust the smart man who discovered that a long time ago.



Afterthought said:


> To hopefully clarify (and looking at my original response you are replying to, I worded it too strongly), by "scientific truths," I would use it in the broad sense for any human methodology of gathering knowledge about God's works of Creation and Providence. However, in the case of "science" in the sense we usually think of (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), which was what I was referring to initially by "scientific facts" (since such facts are the ones relevant to your hypothetical rejection of geocentrism), these result from a study of God's Creation under His ordinary governing of the world. Hence, it is inevitable that such science will conflict with things in Scripture, since God has not governed the world in an ordinary manner only; nevertheless, the conflict is resolved by recognizing that the two are getting at different aspects of reality.(e.g., Scripture giving the Divine perspective while science giving the perspective of second causes; or Scripture giving history while science giving the relations among second causes under ordinary Providential government)



What things that have actually been demonstrated to be true in science conflict with Scripture? Do you have any examples that we could perhaps analyze on a deeper level?


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> With respect to the thread's questions, so far it seems to me that...
> 
> (1) Science and other methods of human discovery are not general revelation
> (2) They nevertheless get at facts about the world we live in, with respect to their various domains.
> (3) These facts are revelatory of God (or more properly, God reveals Himself through all facts of nature, and so through these ones too). What they reveal is general revelation (general revelation in the sense of the things revealed by it). (1) - (3) show the relation of human discoveries to general revelation.



I still don't quite understand how science and other methods of human discovery are not general revelation. Romans 1 describes how all of creation testifies to God's divine power and eternal nature. But how do we perceive God's creation? Through our five senses. At the very basic level, human discovery involves simply using one's senses to perceive the beautiful sunrise that we see each morning.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> I still don't quite understand how science and other methods of human discovery are not general revelation. Romans 1 describes how all of creation testifies to God's divine power and eternal nature. But how do we perceive God's creation? Through our five senses. At the very basic level, human discovery involves simply using one's senses to perceive the beautiful sunrise that we see each morning.


The way I was thinking about it was that if we are using general revelation to mean "the things that are revealed", so far as I can tell, the things that are revealed are things concerning God--not things concerning the natural world. General revelation is a revelation of _God _in nature. However, general revelation is a revelation of God _in nature_; so yes, creation testifies to God's divine power and eternal nature. That doesn't mean the facts of creation themselves are general revelation (they are not the things revealed; your senses are not revealed to you, but God is through their use), though they are revelatory. Hence, it is fair to say that science is not a study of general revelation, though it studies things that testify to God (within their proper domains). This is important, because if science is not an interpretation of general revelation (natural theology/natural law are interpretations of general revelation), then science does not have a "dual" authority to Scripture (or more precisely, science does not have a dual authority to theology--interpretations of special revelation), and indeed, science is then able to conflict with Scripture in the manner stated in posts above.

For an example of conflict, there is the example of the Creation miracle itself. None of that can occur according to scientific processes, and indeed, using careful observation, it could not have occurred in the past _according to scientific processes_. However, this conflict is resolved by noting that the Creation miracle is describing an historical event that took place (actually, the beginning of all historical events); while science is merely describing the relations among things in the natural realm. Both sets of facts are true with respect to the realms they are speaking to and the domains they are operating in; both sets of facts are valuable to know (though the Creation miracle is more valuable for sure). This is all I mean by the inevitable conflict between science and our interpretations of Scripture. If I am still unclear, Rev. Winzer explained this much more clearly and concisely above.



There seems to be an improper sense of "revealed" when we say, "Such was revealed to me by my senses." It seems to me that such is not the divine revelation we speak of when we say "general revelation" or "special revelation". Of course, if that example claim is combined with your view of Providence and knowledge (I think you brought this up with Philip in my Deist thread too), anything we discover is revelation in a proper sense. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to respond to that or not; it will require more thought and time though, if I am. But anyway, these things are probably what are causing a difficulty in communication between us. (Maybe I'll respond to the other parts of your post later, since you raise some interesting points, and those points are the whole reason I posted this thread)





jwithnell said:


> I suppose this is so in the same way that hermeneutics is not scripture. We have methodology for approaching and understanding scripture. Science gives us methodology to understand the creation.


I can agree with this. Though of course, hermeneutics is informed by Scripture. Science generally is not informed by general revelation (though Creation scientists are informed by special revelation), except arguably in past systems (like Descartes'). Science gives a methodology to interpret nature, but nature is not general revelation either, except in an improper sense in that nature is revelatory and that revelation is of God revealing Himself in it. Otherwise, we again run into the problem that there are some things about general revelation that cannot be understood by all, since only accessible to those who can interpret it rightly through advanced Western science (since general revelation cannot be understood without interpretation). Science interprets revelatory facts but does not interpret what those facts reveal.

Also, I wonder if the more proper comparison in the realm of special revelation would be science and textual criticism? Just throwing that out there; I could be quite off.



jwithnell said:


> In a sense, we make "human discoveries" in scripture and we make "human discoveries" in science. We can, and have been wrong in both cases. The key here is to remember that there can be no true contradiction between general and special revelation. Both are revealed by God who cannot contradict himself. *If there appears to be a conflict between the two, our interpretation is wrong of scripture, science, or both. *History is scattered with examples of our errors in both respects.


This is one of the key points of making this thread.

I am not sure if that bolded statement is the correct way to go about it, though it is the standard way of explaining things. While I could admit it as a logical possibility in a vague sense, I could not admit it as an actual probability or a logical possibility in a clear sense (though if one sees science as an interpretation of general revelation, then I think even in a clear sense, this is a logical possibility).

By this I mean, special revelation is (1) more clear, being verbal, (2) a closed world of facts that interpret each other, and so easier to interpret, (3) illuminated by the Holy Spirit both for individuals and for the Church throughout history, (4) and under God's special providential care over His Church. Hence, science and interpretations of special revelation are not on the same footing with regards to error; hence, human discoveries in these realms are not on the same footing; and so, the possibilities mentioned are not actual probabilities. And the possibilities are not logical possibilities in a clear sense (they do not exhaust all the options): science and our interpretation of Scripture may appear to conflict, and yet there be no need to change either (since they have different domains).

I agree that there can be no contradiction between general and special revelation. If God is revealed to be good in general revelation, then He must be revealed to be good in special revelation. I just disagree that science actually is an interpretation of general revelation (it seems to me that natural theology/natural law is; that is where the analogue seems to actually lie for a "dual" authority).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Edit: May I suggest that the actual problem is this: That we are concerned that whatever God reveals in Scripture does not conflict with the reality we know outside of Scripture? That is, that if God reveals something in Scripture that concerns Creation or Providence, we expect that not to contradict Creation or Providence. It isn't about whether special revelation contradicts general revelation, but whether our understanding of Scripture contradicts our understanding of Creation, whether Scripture contradicts experience (observation, reasoning based on observation, testimony such as in history and archaeology, "pure" reasoning such as in mathematics). It seems that it actually isn't about general revelation contradicting special at all.

This is certainly a weighty problem, since the resonance of Scripture with our experience is one large confirmatory evidence of its truth. While this may clarify the actual nature of the question in the OP (When is it legitimate to let what we know outside of Scripture correct our understanding of Scripture?), I'm not sure how it is resolved. The examples in the OP, and especially the pi example, show places where people tend to use experience to correct our understanding of Scripture. And there are some examples to which there seem to be no satisfactory answers (at least, I have never received one), such as the problem of stars that we see exploding that never existed according to our sciences (I'm aware of some solutions to this, but they are rather speculative, in my opinion). Or other examples of these problems is where there's an "appearance of history": historical events that appear to have occurred but special revelation implies did not actually occur. How to resolve these unsatisfactory ones? The best I can see is that an appeal to our ignorance. But the other examples of the OP (such as the pi example, since mathematics tends to be a "certain" science), I'm not sure about yet. This is a reason why it would be nice to settle whether/when we allow our understanding of nature to affect our understanding of Scripture.


A possible problem with the view that science has a disconnection with general revelation (in the sense I've been advocating) is that I'm not sure what to do about the "light of nature"; my best guess is that the "light of nature" shows things about the Created order, and so receives its authoritative force from that. But there's also the issue that the "light of nature" does reveal there is a God and that He is to be worshiped, which I am not sure how to resolve along the view that science has a disconnection with general revelation. (It seems the "light of nature" does include information about general revelation. And it does seem to have a "dual" authority?)


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> I disagree. The reason I do so is because some of those things that others reject (God's creation of the universe) and accept (evolutionary processes) are just theories, and not proven at all. You can actually demonstrate that the earth revolves around the sun. Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Why not? So again, we must always take science with a grain of salt, and recognize its strengths and its limitations. Science has not yet demonstrated that anything affirmed by Scripture was false. There are many 'theories' that go contrary to Scripture, but those are still just theories and guesses.


Has science really not demonstrated something affirmed by (one's interpretation of) Scripture was false (we are speaking of interpretations, not the things that are interpreted)? Is the actual state of affairs that science proved one of your assumptions wrong, so you decided to see whether Scripture could possibly be interpreted another way? (And actually, it's not just you; it's many people) And since Scripture could be interpreted another way, you concluded that science actually didn't show something false of Scripture, since you now have an interpretation under which Scripture no longer affirms that something (and thus, you no longer believe Scripture affirms something science has shown to be false and so can say science has never shown Scripture to affirm something false). Geocentrism once was defended by some Protestants on exegetical grounds; they probably would have seen any proof of heliocentrism as science showing Scripture to be false. But of course, you will say that either the science wasn't developed enough or they weren't aware of their assumptions that were proven wrong by it yet. This then does seem to make science necessary for interpreting Scripture correctly.

(And to answer your question, though I'm not sure it is actually relevant for this discussion: scientifically, I don't see how geocentrism can be consistent with the current state of science. I used to think the theory of Relativity would allow such, but I'm not so sure anymore, because of Coriolis forces that produce accelerations and the possibility of the background radiation providing an absolute frame of sorts. Perhaps something will come out someday that turns things around, but I don't see what could, given the current state of scientific knowledge. Biblically though, I find the exegetical case stronger than I had initially thought it was, though I still have some questions I'd like to ask sometime concerning the biblical case. However, one major part of the biblical case is the consideration of science's ability to interpret Scripture--as is the case in the immutability of species, YEC/OEC, Creation/Evolution, and probably many others. If science is allowed a role in our interpretation at that point, then there is no support left for geocentrism. If science is not, then the question must be decided within the Bible itself.)




Loopie said:


> The 'facts' of general revelations are accessible to everyone.


Not if the facts are only available through Western science. In all Scripture, it seems to me we see that general revelation is available to all men, not only to men who happen to think in a Western way, or spend years trying to find things through a particularly specialized method, or to men who are forced into trusting whatever the scholars tell them. I could be incorrect in my understanding of the "availability" of general revelation, but that's what I understood "available" to mean when it was first brought up in this thread. (Also, the article I linked to brought up a fair point: Why aren't unbelievers suppressing this general revelation that science gives, if general revelation includes the facts obtained by science? They seem perfectly content with heliocentrism.)


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Afterthought said:


> Ordinarly, we interpret general revelation by Scripture. But to what extent does general revelation interpret Scripture? For example, to understand what certain words are or certain objects are, we need general revelation, so there does seem to be some interpretive role. For another, there are various measures given in Scripture. One famous one that unbelievers have pulled out is that the bible gets the value of pi wrong. Usually, the response I've heard is that the bible was using round numbers, so of course the value of pi would be approximate only. However, this response assumes that what we know about pi from general revelation is correct, and thus uses general revelation to interpret Scripture.
> 
> For another, the* immutability of species* was believed in for a long time, on theological grounds (I think Thomas Aquinas first argued this?). However, once Darwin came along, immutability of species was no longer seen as true, and so the understanding of theology changed accordingly. For another, *geocentrism*, which after science did its thing, the relevant passages were then interpreted heliocentrically by and large. Same for the *old earth/young earth debate, and the creation/evolution debate.*
> 
> Perhaps in order for general revelation to interpret Scripture (rather than Scripture interpret general revelation), the general revelation needs to be of a certain kind? Or maybe there's a conflation of categories here (between science, observation, and mathematics/reasoning) that can explain this? Surely we can trust more or less what we observe, since we can trust our senses. But since we need to trust our inductive reasoning skills, there must be an extent to which we can trust inductions from what we observe too? Beyond that though, it seems anything else must be based on hypothesis/testing, though whether that is reliable enough or not, I'm not sure (the problem, of course, being that such is how the theory of evolution is supported, but also how molecular theory was initially supported). Or maybe there is no definite way to tell when general revlation interprets Scripture and when Scripture interprets general revelation, but rather, there is a complex interplay between the two?



Dear Brother, I asked the same questions as you in my early years as a Christian. Highschool biology class as a young Christian WITHOUT the understanding of Genesis 1-11 was a hard time 

Instead of trying to answer your questions in sketches and shadows, I would recommend you to creation.com. You can find ALL your answers regarding the whole "Creation/evolution" or "old/young earth" debate (_for there is no debate - evolution is totally unscientific let alone unbiblical_). 

Regarding Geocentricism and Speciation as "The church" used to define it - creation.com has all the answers there as well. Just search in the top-right bar for articles. You won't be disappointed!


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> The way I was thinking about it was that if we are using general revelation to mean "the things that are revealed", so far as I can tell, the things that are revealed are things concerning God--not things concerning the natural world. General revelation is a revelation of _God _in nature. However, general revelation is a revelation of God _in nature_; so yes, creation testifies to God's divine power and eternal nature. That doesn't mean the facts of creation themselves are general revelation (they are not the things revealed; your senses are not revealed to you, but God is through their use), though they are revelatory. Hence, it is fair to say that science is not a study of general revelation, though it studies things that testify to God (within their proper domains).



Fair enough. I believe I see what you mean. Would you agree that looking at another human being would fall under this category? What I mean is, when I see another human being, I ought to recognize that he or she is created in the image of God. The human being is not General Revelation, but is revelatory, correct?

But even though I might agree that our sense are not revealed to us, everything that they perceive is revealed to us IN THE SENSE THAT we would not know anything unless God had ordained that we should know it. Furthermore, I would also say that every truth that we 'discover' points back to God in some way, and is revelatory in some way.



Afterthought said:


> This is important, because if science is not an interpretation of general revelation (natural theology/natural law are interpretations of general revelation), then science does not have a "dual" authority to Scripture (or more precisely, science does not have a dual authority to theology--interpretations of special revelation), and indeed, science is then able to conflict with Scripture in the manner stated in posts above.



But science, if used properly (not used as a tool of rebellion against God) can assist us in better understanding what Scripture is affirming. When the Bible speaks of God setting the pillars of the earth in place, the Bible is not actually suggesting that the earth is standing on literal 'pillars'. It COULD be interpreted that way, but how do we know that it isn't? By discovering how God truly has set up the earth in its orbit, we are given more clarity about what Scripture is referring to.



Afterthought said:


> For an example of conflict, there is the example of the Creation miracle itself. None of that can occur according to scientific processes, and indeed, using careful observation, it could not have occurred in the past _according to scientific processes_. However, this conflict is resolved by noting that the Creation miracle is describing an historical event that took place (actually, the beginning of all historical events); while science is merely describing the relations among things in the natural realm. Both sets of facts are true with respect to the realms they are speaking to and the domains they are operating in; both sets of facts are valuable to know (though the Creation miracle is more valuable for sure). This is all I mean by the inevitable conflict between science and our interpretations of Scripture. If I am still unclear, Rev. Winzer explained this much more clearly and concisely above.



It is not a conflict at all. Yes it is true that creation could not have taken place according to scientific processes. But remember, science is only describing the normative way that things operate. Generally speaking, the sun rises and sets. Yes God has at times caused the sun to stay in place in the sky, but that is typically not how things happen. So science IS explaining truth, and the key here is if the 'scientist' is using the tools of science to further rebel against God, or to glorify him.


----------



## Afterthought

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> Instead of trying to answer your questions in sketches and shadows, I would recommend you to creation.com.


Thank you for the recommendation! I have actually been aware of the website for quite some time. I have found it to be a useful resource here and there, but I find Creation science to be rather speculative and am not sure I agree with that approach to science. And of course, the theology on the website is not always of the Reformed persuasion. I also have some doubts about their article on geocentrism, but I have not had time to look into it in detail to see whether their claims that it arose because of Aristotelian philosophy is true. I do know for a fact that some Protestants have defended it biblically--even after heliocentrism became well established, and I find it unlikely that they in general let such influence their interpretation, given their high commitment to the Scriptures (though such is certainly possible; I'd need to look into it). Nevertheless, it is a good resource overall, and certainly one of the more impressive Creation science websites out there; I wouldn't want my criticisms to detract from that.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> Fair enough. I believe I see what you mean. Would you agree that looking at another human being would fall under this category? What I mean is, when I see another human being, I ought to recognize that he or she is created in the image of God. The human being is not General Revelation, but is revelatory, correct?
> 
> But even though I might agree that our sense are not revealed to us, everything that they perceive is revealed to us IN THE SENSE THAT we would not know anything unless God had ordained that we should know it. Furthermore, I would also say that every truth that we 'discover' points back to God in some way, and is revelatory in some way.


Maybe I'll have time later to respond to the rest, but for now, I'll mention that yes I agree that all created things (including facts) are revelatory. And so yes, I agree that the human being is not general revelation (in the sense of the things that are revealed) but is revelatory.

As for your second paragraph, I find it somewhat odd: I agree in a sense, yet in another sense, I disagree, but I'm not sure how to verbalize it. I agree that God is sovereign over our knowledge and our coming to know things. Commonly speaking, when we come to know something or perceive something that was there all along, we sometimes say that the fact has been revealed to us. In that sense, I could agree that God reveals all knowledge. However, in this context of speaking about general and special revelation, I don't think "revelation" as used in the sense you have mentioned means the same thing as the "revelation" in "general revelation" or "special revelation." What that difference is though, I'm not sure. I'm drawn to saying that general and special revelation are "divine revelation" while Providential "revelation" isn't, but I'm not sure that quite gets at the difference, since the other "revelation" is brought about by divine activity in the providential governing of the world.

But perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure that is what people mean when they say all knowledge and all facts are revealed by God. If it is, then fair enough! But it seems to me when people say it, they intend something else, though I know not what. For an example, I have found a piece by Van Til on this subject, in which he states we cannot "truly know" anything without revelation (I'm not sure how knowledge can be spoken of in terms of true and false, so I'm not sure what precisely Van Til meant by "truly know", though I have a vague idea of the sense he was conveying). Van Til not only states this but explains what he means by this. It actually seems to be related to the first answer given to this quesiton when I raised it (Rev. Winzer mentioned that there are no brute facts). I'm still not entirely sure how it fits together (e.g., What is the difference between the believer's and the unbeliever's knowledge? How do we figure out the divine interpretation of facts: is it merely that we acknowledge its revelatory status? Perhaps we do not have a complete enough understanding of the facts unless we see it as Created and revelatory? Does this view imply that we must interpret the facts of Creation by Scripture, e.g., the Genesis account, in order to keep from sinning and to do justice to the facts?), but if this is what is usually meant when people say it, I think I'm getting closer to understanding.



From Van Til's _Survery of Christian Epistemology_:

"The point of importance to note about this matter of Scripture is that according to the Christian theistic position the Bible is an inherent part of the system of theism as a whole. If man is a totally dependent creature, if this creature has fallen into sin so that the whole of creation has for his sake been subjected to “vanity”; if the “facts” because created by God must ultimately be interpreted by God as to connotation and denotation alike, there must be a Scripture which brings this interpretation of God. But that Scripture must be, we learn from Scripture itself. Without the Scripture as the word of the self-attesting Christ we would know no fact for what it is, i.e., as set in the only framework in which it can have meaning. It is of the utmost importance that Christians themselves become aware of the exact position of Scripture in their thinking. All too often they carry forth the old Scholastic doctrine that man can know certain facts by the exercise of his reason but that he needs information about other facts by way of revelation.

*Now if the Christian theistic view is true at all, there is no fact that can be known truly without the revelation of Scripture.* Reason and revelation should not be contrasted as two sources of knowledge. It ought to be clearly understood that the “facts” by virtue of their creation by God cannot be known otherwise than by revelation. By virtue of creation the “facts” are themselves a revelation of God. And the revelation of God in the facts of the created world was, from the beginning supplemented by the “supernatural” word revelation of God. Hence if reason is to function fruitfully it must always function upon revelational material. Reason as one “fact” among others is itself a revelation. This much is implied in theism. In addition to this we must maintain that no “fact” can be truly known, now that sin has come into the world, without the special revelation of Scripture, because it is only through Christ and the Scriptures that “facts” are seen as they are, that is, as theistic “facts.”

We are interested in all this only to see what bearing it has upon the starting point of knowledge as far as the object of knowledge is concerned. And we must note therefore that on this very point the difference between the theist and the antitheist is very marked. This scarcely needs elaboration since it is a fact of common knowledge that not only avowed antitheists take for granted that one can start an investigation of many “facts” without any reference to Scripture at all. We must analyze still further the theory that we can begin the course of factual investigation without reference to the Bible."



Edit:


Loopie said:


> But science, if used properly (not used as a tool of rebellion against God) can assist us in better understanding what Scripture is affirming. When the Bible speaks of God setting the pillars of the earth in place, the Bible is not actually suggesting that the earth is standing on literal 'pillars'. It COULD be interpreted that way, but how do we know that it isn't? By discovering how God truly has set up the earth in its orbit, we are given more clarity about what Scripture is referring to.


The figures are identifiable by various markers in the text. There is no need for science to come to the rescue of the proper interpretation of Scripture. However, as far as science "filling out" some things Scripture mentions, there is no problem with that, but the question remains: When precisely is science allowed to do that? When has it overstepped its bounds into interpreting Scripture (if indeed it shouldn't)?



Loopie said:


> It is not a conflict at all. Yes it is true that creation could not have taken place according to scientific processes. But remember, science is only describing the normative way that things operate. Generally speaking, the sun rises and sets. Yes God has at times caused the sun to stay in place in the sky, but that is typically not how things happen. So science IS explaining truth, and the key here is if the 'scientist' is using the tools of science to further rebel against God, or to glorify him.


That's because you're resolving the conflict. The conflict takes place between what we know from an observational perspective and what we know from what God has revealed in Scripture (a divine perspective). The two "knowledges" conflict, i.e., the claims they make conflict....until we realize that the "knowledges" and "claims" are relative to two different domains and contexts, and then the conflict is resolved. A conflict takes place whenever a miracle has occured. If geocentrism is correct, then there's a conflict not involving a miracle (Since you reject it, I mention this merely for the sake of completeness).

I certainly agree that science is getting at something real, something true, and that the scientist should use the tools of science to further glorify God. However, the very tools of science may generate conflict at times, and this isn't bad: it's just the way science works, as it is ever trying to refine its claims and methods to claims and methods that have a higher probability of "getting at" something real (this way also theoretically ensures science stays on a very critical path so as to avoid speculation). Of course, as already acknowledged, the "something real" will be within the particular domain science is restricted to. So any conflict is resolvable along those lines...or along the lines of realizing that science is ever refining its opinion and so it could very well have a wrong opinion for a particular duration of time...or by simply denying the science was done properly or the evidence given a proper interpretation...or by denying the science was conducted according to a proper method. A few of these last options could cause a real and "unresolvable" (by which I mean, we won't be able to understand for sure how the conflict is resolved, though we know it is resolvable by at least one of the principles mentioned) conflict for an indefinite period of time (an example of such are "appearances of historical events", such as supernovae explosions, which, if we combine Scriptural and natural data, come from stars that never existed; or certain geological formations; or some other astronomical/astrophysical phenomena.).


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> If we take Van Til's model, then general revelation was never intended to exist without special revelation, e.g., Genesis 2. Further, there are no brute facts, but only God-interpreted facts.


How does one go about interpreting the facts, since Scripture does not address all facts specifically? From reading the quotation of Van Til I made above, it seems the idea is to interpret facts based on a Christian way of thinking? Or is it deeper than that, and we must also interpret facts in the light of Scripture directly (e.g., we know Scripture teaches a particular view of Creation, so then must we interpret all our scientific [in the broad sense to include history, archaeology, etc.] facts in light of that and throw out the facts that conflict with such as "science done wrongly"?)?

Further, if we interpret facts based on our knowledge of Scripture, do we then run into a spiral here too when it comes to interpreting Scripture? If so, then it seems there really are no definite bounds to the extent of science being able to interpret Scripture?


----------



## MW

Raymond, I think CVT's point is apologetical more than anything. Without the facts of supernatural revelation we might have a functional knowledge of certain things but we will have no fundamental assurance for asserting anything about anything unless God Himself accredits and interprets the facts. I am not a Van Tillian scholar, so I am not in a position to say how specific this must become in terms of practical science.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Raymond, I think CVT's point is apologetical more than anything. Without the facts of supernatural revelation we might have a functional knowledge of certain things but we will have no fundamental assurance for asserting anything about anything unless God Himself accredits and interprets the facts. I am not a Van Tillian scholar, so I am not in a position to say how specific this must become in terms of practical science.


Thanks anyway! Where is James?  It seems to me that practical part plays a vital role, even on the apologetical level, since unless we can know what God's interpretation is, I'm not sure that Van Til's idea here works.


Something that occurred to me. We distinguish between a magisterial and ministerial use of reason when it comes to using it to interpret Scripture. Precisely how do we distinguish between the two? Perhaps we can apply the same distinction to the use of human sciences in interpreting Scripture?


----------



## Loopie

Raymond,

This has been a great discussion, and I too have had many of the same thoughts that you have had regarding the relationship between General Revelation and Special Revelation. I know that we have to be careful about clearly defining what we mean by General revelation, but my focus in this particular post is to discuss the relationship between truth claims of science and our interpretation of Scripture. 

You bring up a good question when you ask how we should balance, or harmonize, 'science' and 'Scripture'. I know we have already talked about a few things, but I wish to clarify a point of mine. Let us first consider some of the words of Scripture (from the ESV):

1 Chronicles 16:30-
"Worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth;
*yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved*."

1 Samuel 2:8-
"He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
*For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
and on them he has set the world*."

Psalm 93:1-
"The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
*Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved*."

Psalm 104:5-
"*He set the earth on its foundations, 
so that it should never be moved."*

Now, it seems at first glance that a very strong argument could be made from these passages that the Earth simply does not move. It is fixed in the heavens, and does NOT orbit the sun, or any other heavenly body. Perhaps if you and I were living several hundred years ago, we would be having a great debate over whether the earth orbits the sun or whether the sun orbits the earth.

So when we look at these passages, I think that we must be as honest and accurate as possible in our hermeneutical method. How is one to interpret these passages? Is there only one way that these can be understood? I would argue that even though these passages COULD teach geocentrism, they do not necessarily HAVE to teach that. In this way, I believe that as we 'discover' the world that God has created, we will come to have a better understanding of what Scripture is saying regarding certain topics. That is, the passages above, taken alone, COULD mean that God has placed the earthly upon 'literal', 'physical' pillars. But as we come to better understand the universe that God has created, we gain a better understanding of what God is really saying in those passages. In other words, our interpretive method, based on our presuppositions and assumptions, might not be as accurate or as correct as it should be, which would lead us to try to interpret these passages to say something that they might not be saying. 

There is no doubt that a person who was living several hundred years ago would not be able to 'prove' one way or another whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Hopefully, if two people were arguing back then with each other over what these passages were saying, they should have at least been able to agree that the passages were 'broad' or 'basic' enough to allow for either understanding of the cosmos. But until God had 'revealed' (through man's discovery and measurement of the cosmos) more information, the question as to whether or not the earth revolved around the sun was one that could not be resolved. But simply because one man understood the passage as teaching geocentrism, and was later 'proven' wrong, does not mean that science has 'trumped' the Bible. No. I would argue that God, in laying out creation as something for man to gain more knowledge and understanding about, forces man to reconsider his own presuppositions and assumptions when approaching Scripture. That is, as we continue to learn more about this world, we should be humbled at the amount of things we still do not know or fully understand. At the same time, we should always consider the presuppositions that we bring to the table when we try to interpret Scripture. Does the Bible ONLY allow for the geo-centrist position? Or does it allow for another possible explanation of the cosmos? Does 'science' trump the Bible, or does science help US as humans reconsider our hermeneutical presuppositions? I think 'science' in a certain way CAN bring 'clarity' to what God has revealed in scripture. That is, the two men who were debating several hundred years ago did not have that much 'clarity' on whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. The Bible allowed for either understanding of the cosmos, but there was no other tool that they might use to resolve their dispute. We today have a bit more clarity regarding that particular issue, because we can demonstrate/prove that the earth does indeed orbit the sun.

Before I finish, I do want to point out that it is important for us to be specific about the term 'science'. There is a big difference between demonstrating that the earth revolves around the sun and theorizing that neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes are what brought about the diversity of life on this planet. I think that true science has been 'hijacked' by secularists and atheists, to the point that they claim the term for themselves. The 'science' that they speak of is not real science, but man-centered speculation. My goal is to highlight this difference, and to show that true science, which glorifies God, does not conflict with Scripture. If there is any 'apparent' conflict, we must first consider our 'scientific method', and what assumptions we are making from it. At the same time, we must also always be 'refining' and seeking to 'perfect' our hermeneutical method, looking for those presuppositions and assumptions that we are making when we read Scripture. Ultimately, if Scripture IS God's word, then any 'apparent' contradiction will only be so in our minds, originating out of a human error or misunderstanding, rather than an actual contradiction between God's word and his creation.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Afterthought said:


> SinnerSavedByChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of trying to answer your questions in sketches and shadows, I would recommend you to creation.com.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the recommendation! I have actually been aware of the website for quite some time. I have found it to be a useful resource here and there, but I find Creation science to be rather speculative and am not sure I agree with that approach to science. And of course, the theology on the website is not always of the Reformed persuasion. I also have some doubts about their article on geocentrism, but I have not had time to look into it in detail to see whether their claims that it arose because of Aristotelian philosophy is true. I do know for a fact that some Protestants have defended it biblically--even after heliocentrism became well established, and I find it unlikely that they in general let such influence their interpretation, given their high commitment to the Scriptures (though such is certainly possible; I'd need to look into it). Nevertheless, it is a good resource overall, and certainly one of the more impressive Creation science websites out there; I wouldn't want my criticisms to detract from that.
Click to expand...


Glad you've found creation.com I hope you realise that *no secular science body confesses that any part of the scripture is correct. Nor do any scientist confess that the scriptures speak scientific truth, as YHWH is the one who created all "wisdom" and laws of nature as we find them.* The implications of this are huge: firstly they (secular scientists) deny that the world as we know it was created some 6~7000 years ago. And a vast majority of Christian leaders and pew-christians also deny this truth. What a dangerous thing to do when the *Lord* Himself quoted Genesis 1 + 2 in the same statement regarding "_In the Beginning_ God made man in His image, man and woman He created them." and "The two shall be one". 

So we must realise that, though creation.com / Institute of Creation Research (The Institute for Creation Research) are never ever cited in scientific journals, nor acknowledged by ANY secular scientists, they begin their investigation of the light of nature from the most important premise: that the scriptures are *True.* The world was created some 7000 years ago. There was a global flood. Men used to live to 1000 years old. Incest was not deleterious in the beginning, but became more damaging during the Mosaic era (since population DNA degenerates and accumulates more damage over time). All men are descended from Noah and his wife. There was no death of _nephesh_ (souls of animals / men) until The Fall. No death!!! 


could go on and on - and on and on. But the question for every one of us is this: *Do I believe the Scriptures or do I listen to ungodly men who were long ago marked out for this condemnation?*. 

On the contrary, there is a most reverent way of doing science, by first acknowledging the clear truths of scripture, then uncovering (not discovering - for we "discover" nothing, as all the laws of nature, all wisdom in the universe is already there!! God has put it there - we just have to uncover it.) the truths which God has so wisely embedded in the cosmos. I myself being a medical student, am AWED at the complexities of the human body._"I am fearfully and wonderfully made"_. I am in AWE when I _"Consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have ordained." _


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> So when we look at these passages, I think that we must be as honest and accurate as possible in our hermeneutical method. How is one to interpret these passages? Is there only one way that these can be understood? I would argue that even though these passages COULD teach geocentrism, they do not necessarily HAVE to teach that. In this way, I believe that as we 'discover' the world that God has created, we will come to have a better understanding of what Scripture is saying regarding certain topics. That is, the passages above, taken alone, COULD mean that God has placed the earthly upon 'literal', 'physical' pillars. But as we come to better understand the universe that God has created, we gain a better understanding of what God is really saying in those passages. In other words, our interpretive method, based on our presuppositions and assumptions, might not be as accurate or as correct as it should be, which would lead us to try to interpret these passages to say something that they might not be saying.


I am no skilled exegete, but I do know that the reason to interpret something figuratively is because there are reasons within the text for doing so, and that would most likely be the case for the "pillars", in which case such is not a possibility for what the Scriptures are *saying*. The problem with the above is that it makes what the Scriptures are _saying_ dependent upon our (western) human science, and so science does indeed end up interpreting Scripture for us, which certainly seems backwards and certainly is not what we tend to do with evolution (more on that in a bit). I could be very wrong that such is a wrong way to go about interpreting Scripture--so far, everyone in this thread has seemed to say that such is indeed allowable--but I am not aware that it is wrong yet.

I had to smile when I saw this: "Perhaps if you and I were living several hundred years ago, we would be having a great debate over whether the earth orbits the sun or whether the sun orbits the earth." Because I couldn't help but thinking: "Or on the PB!"  Those who are geocentrists of some sort because of Scripture will claim that the Scriptures do indeed necessitate the position; you can look in past PB threads for more info. I find the debate fascinating, among other things, as an example of "How we should interpret the Bible", especially on a board filled with those who hold to six ordinary day Creation who have had to deal with similar (though perhaps not the exact same; I'm not sure that one position methodologically necessitates the other) issues in coming to or holding that position.




Loopie said:


> Does 'science' trump the Bible, or does science help US as humans reconsider our hermeneutical presuppositions? I think 'science' in a certain way CAN bring 'clarity' to what God has revealed in scripture. That is, the two men who were debating several hundred years ago did not have that much 'clarity' on whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. The Bible allowed for either understanding of the cosmos, but there was no other tool that they might use to resolve their dispute. We today have a bit more clarity regarding that particular issue, because we can demonstrate/prove that the earth does indeed orbit the sun.


So far as I'm aware, our hermeneutical presuppositions come from the Bible itself, in part to protect us from human reasoning imposing an interpretation that makes sense to it; such reasoning changes from age to age and tend to make the Scriptures say what one wishes. As a note, we cannot "demonstrate/prove" that, but we can show that our best theories use that and provide predictions that give evidence for such, though we cannot exclude that the other possibility may be true in some sense (though we may not know what sense) and though we must recognize our theories are provisional (though I'm sure if any of my college friends read that or heard me say that, they would wince; I don't think science should be that dogmatic over such things, though it can have a confidence depending on the evidence). There is also an issue with saying "God 'revealed'" more information; that suggests He is actively and specially involved in our sciences so that we can interpret the Scriptures better. I'm not sure that is the case, though I could be wrong. Since this issue of science bringing more "clarity" to Scripture was addressed in the first paragraph (correct me if I'm wrong), I'll let my response to that be what I wrote above.



Loopie said:


> Before I finish, I do want to point out that it is important for us to be specific about the term 'science'. There is a big difference between demonstrating that the earth revolves around the sun and theorizing that neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes are what brought about the diversity of life on this planet. I think that true science has been 'hijacked' by secularists and atheists, to the point that they claim the term for themselves. The 'science' that they speak of is not real science, but man-centered speculation. My goal is to highlight this difference, and to show that true science, which glorifies God, does not conflict with Scripture. If there is any 'apparent' conflict, we must first consider our 'scientific method', and what assumptions we are making from it. At the same time, we must also always be 'refining' and seeking to 'perfect' our hermeneutical method, looking for those presuppositions and assumptions that we are making when we read Scripture. Ultimately, if Scripture IS God's word, then any 'apparent' contradiction will only be so in our minds, originating out of a human error or misunderstanding, rather than an actual contradiction between God's word and his creation.


It is true that science states men do not rise from the dead. It is also true that according to science, we see explosions from distant stars. Yet Scripture states that there was One who rose from the dead. And many here would say that Scripture teaches the earth is way too young for us to see those star explosions--unless those stars never existed. And yet we do not go about saying, "Well, science has given us clarity on these issues. We know people do not rise from the dead, so something else must have happened. We know that the universe cannot be that young, so those Scriptures that supposedly show otherwise must have been interpreted with faulty presuppositions, and we can understand such now thanks to our science." These are conflicts that are only resolvable along the lines I've mentioned before, unless one wishes to put some mixture of science and Scripture together. They are real conflicts, not resulting from an error of human understanding or in the mind alone, and it is a good thing there are these conflicts: our supernatural view of things would be at stake or our ability to observe would be. (If by "apparent conflict", you simply mean that the real conflict can be resolved--as has been mentioned earlier in this thread--then I won't quibble over the wording this time around)

As for the comments about evolution and "true science" never contradicting Scripture, I have no problem with true science contradicting Scripture, since we end up in speculation otherwise (and such "true science" would not be man-centered, of course; it would not impose itself on Scripture, seek to confirm man's sinful beliefs, degrade human reason through speculation made dogmatic, overstepping its self-imposed boundaries, refusing to acknowledge God, etc.), as explained earlier in the thread. And for evolution, it seems you reject it because you believe it to be scientifically unsound. If it were ever proven, would your assumptions be challenged enough to realize you were interpreting Genesis wrong? These sorts of comments about "true science" and evolution sometimes make me wonder whether Creation science is really just the other side of the coin of evolution (you have not claimed that label, but these are the things I hear from at least some who would agree with such); at the very least, Old earth Creationism would seem to tend to be. In the end, it seems to only be a matter of degree rather than one in principle when evolution is rejected on Scriptural grounds, which is what I meant by my comment earlier (The same seems to me to go for various miracles that some [non-PB members] decide to explain naturalistically). (And I mean no offense or personal attack by these comments to you or anyone)



Edit:


SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> Do I believe the Scriptures or do I listen to ungodly men who were long ago marked out for this condemnation?.
> 
> On the contrary, there is a most reverent way of doing science, by first acknowledging the clear truths of scripture, then uncovering (not discovering - for we "discover" nothing, as all the laws of nature, all wisdom in the universe is already there!! God has put it there - we just have to uncover it.) the truths which God has so wisely embedded in the cosmos. I myself being a medical student, am AWED at the complexities of the human body."I am fearfully and wonderfully made". I am in AWE when I "Consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have ordained."


Overall  to your post!


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> I am no skilled exegete, but I do know that the reason to interpret something figuratively is because there are reasons within the text for doing so, and that would most likely be the case for the "pillars", in which case such is not a possibility for what the Scriptures are *saying*. The problem with the above is that it makes what the Scriptures are _saying_ dependent upon our (western) human science, and so science does indeed end up interpreting Scripture for us, which certainly seems backwards and certainly is not what we tend to do with evolution (more on that in a bit). I could be very wrong that such is a wrong way to go about interpreting Scripture--so far, everyone in this thread has seemed to say that such is indeed allowable--but I am not aware that it is wrong yet.



I agree that we can interpret those verses figuratively, but there have been (and perhaps are) Christians that believe the sun orbits the earth. When they interpret Scripture that way, you can SHOW them that their hermeneutic is not quite as accurate as it should be. Perhaps they might feel that you are personally attacking the Bible, or trying to undermine God's word. Yet in reality you are showing them that they have made some wrong assumptions about how to interpret the Bible. Do we not do the same thing when we have discussions with Dispensationalists regarding the Rapture?



Afterthought said:


> So far as I'm aware, our hermeneutical presuppositions come from the Bible itself, in part to protect us from human reasoning imposing an interpretation that makes sense to it; such reasoning changes from age to age and tend to make the Scriptures say what one wishes. As a note, we cannot "demonstrate/prove" that, but we can show that our best theories use that and provide predictions that give evidence for such, though we cannot exclude that the other possibility may be true in some sense (though we may not know what sense) and though we must recognize our theories are provisional (though I'm sure if any of my college friends read that or heard me say that, they would wince; I don't think science should be that dogmatic over such things, though it can have a confidence depending on the evidence). There is also an issue with saying "God 'revealed'" more information; that suggests He is actively and specially involved in our sciences so that we can interpret the Scriptures better. I'm not sure that is the case, though I could be wrong. Since this issue of science bringing more "clarity" to Scripture was addressed in the first paragraph (correct me if I'm wrong), I'll let my response to that be what I wrote above.



Well, our presuppositions also come from our culture and education. Right now there are many young people who just assume that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is true, and they THEN interpret the Bible in light of that assumption. So our goal is to always to highlight and address the assumptions and presuppositions that people bring to the table. This includes our own presuppositions. 

As for your statement that we cannot 'demonstrate/prove' that the earth orbits the sun, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that regardless of the instruments of measurement that we use, they cannot be considered truthful? What does it mean, in your opinion, to 'prove' something? What would be enough 'proof' to show you that the earth does indeed orbit the sun?

I understand that some might have an issue with my use of the term 'revealed'. Yet what it means to me is that God, through various means (including his creation) has revealed truths to us. He has provided this entire creation for man to 'discover' and 'subdue'. There is so much for us to learn and discover about God's creation, that in a sense it has been revealed to us. By revealed I mean that God has given us many things to learn, and has provided us with the means to learn them.

When I say that science can give us 'clarity' regarding what the Bible speaks about, I mean simply that there were many things that we humans could not fully understand when God first gave us his Word. I love the book of Job, as it demonstrates how little men know about how God made the universe (and there is so much we still do not know). Yet we DO know more regarding many things than others in the past have known. Does this increased knowledge help to 'narrow' or 'zoom in on' what the Bible teaches regarding certain things? I would say yes. When God spoke his Word to us, he used terminology of 'pillars' and 'unmoved' regarding the foundation of earth. It does not seem that God was providing a scientific treatise on how exactly the laws of the universe worked. The word that God gave man was enough to enable man to have faith and trust in the Lord (that the Lord has laid a solid foundation for the earth, and that he holds all things together). As time goes on we have come to know a bit more detail about how exactly God has established the cosmos to function. This has not changed what the Bible says. What it has done is simply changed our starting point. No longer do we look at the Bible without any knowledge whatsoever (only theory) regarding the cosmos. Now we approach the Bible with a more complete picture of what is going on out there. By no means do we have exhaustive knowledge of the cosmos, but our knowledge has increased. This does not change what those passages in Scripture mean. God still holds all things together, and he has still set the earth on a solid foundation.



Afterthought said:


> It is true that science states men do not rise from the dead. It is also true that according to science, we see explosions from distant stars. Yet Scripture states that there was One who rose from the dead. And many here would say that Scripture teaches the earth is way too young for us to see those star explosions--unless those stars never existed. And yet we do not go about saying, "Well, science has given us clarity on these issues. We know people do not rise from the dead, so something else must have happened. We know that the universe cannot be that young, so those Scriptures that supposedly show otherwise must have been interpreted with faulty presuppositions, and we can understand such now thanks to our science." These are conflicts that are only resolvable along the lines I've mentioned before, unless one wishes to put some mixture of science and Scripture together. They are real conflicts, not resulting from an error of human understanding or in the mind alone, and it is a good thing there are these conflicts: our supernatural view of things would be at stake or our ability to observe would be. (If by "apparent conflict", you simply mean that the real conflict can be resolved--as has been mentioned earlier in this thread--then I won't quibble over the wording this time around)



What causes conflict are the presuppositions and assumptions that are made. There is a BIG difference between saying that Scripture allows for the possibility of the sun orbiting the earth, or the earth orbiting the sun, and saying that there are no such things as miracles (or that God cannot suspend the 'laws of nature' that he himself has established as the normal means by which the cosmos functions). Science SHOULD state that without intervention by God, men do not rise from the dead. That is a TRUE statement. Without God acting in a specific way, no man would rise from the dead. So rather than science causing a conflict with Scripture, you have disobedient rebellious men, holding to presuppositions that are in opposition to God. In this case, it is MAN that is in conflict with God, NOT science. In fact, I would define 'science' as being the acts by which men learn and discover more about God's creation. Based on this understanding of what true science is, it will never be in conflict with Scripture. It might be in conflict with someone's flawed interpretation of Scripture, but that does not demonstrate a weakness in Scripture, only a weakness in man.



Afterthought said:


> As for the comments about evolution and "true science" never contradicting Scripture, I have no problem with true science contradicting Scripture, since we end up in speculation otherwise (and such "true science" would not be man-centered, of course; it would not impose itself on Scripture, seek to confirm man's sinful beliefs, degrade human reason through speculation made dogmatic, overstepping its self-imposed boundaries, refusing to acknowledge God, etc.), as explained earlier in the thread. And for evolution, it seems you reject it because you believe it to be scientifically unsound. If it were ever proven, would your assumptions be challenged enough to realize you were interpreting Genesis wrong? These sorts of comments about "true science" and evolution sometimes make me wonder whether Creation science is really just the other side of the coin of evolution (you have not claimed that label, but these are the things I hear from at least some who would agree with such); at the very least, Old earth Creationism would seem to tend to be. In the end, it seems to only be a matter of degree rather than one in principle when evolution is rejected on Scriptural grounds, which is what I meant by my comment earlier (The same seems to me to go for various miracles that some [non-PB members] decide to explain naturalistically). (And I mean no offense or personal attack by these comments to you or anyone)



You are offering a hypothetical situation when you say 'if evolution were proven to be true'. I do not think that is possible. I think such a hypothetical situation cannot exist. Let me tell you a personal experience of mine that will help me to better explain what I mean:

Some time ago I heard a preacher say in a sermon that if the Bible said that men had three arms, then it would have to be true regardless of what evidence we might have. This statement caused me to wince, not because I have a low view of the Bible (which is NOT the case at all), but because he was delving into the realm of hypotheticals, a realm that we have less knowledge about than our own current realm. You see, IF the Bible said that men had three arms, then I would EXPECT to see this truth be made manifest in actual history, and in real life. Consider the claims of the Mormons regarding the golden tablets. IF it is indeed true that certain 'odd' or 'controversial' things happened in the past, we SHOULD be able to detect some sort of 'ripple' effect in history. Things do not just happen in a vacuum. That is just one thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions. We can be confident that the historical record of human history lines up perfectly with what Scripture says. And IF the Bible did teach that men had three arms, we WOULD see historical evidence of that biblical truth throughout human history. It would be silly to think that we would have absolutely no extra-biblical evidence of men having three arms. 

So to bring this back to what you said regarding evolution, IF evolution WERE true, then we would not be able to explain certain things such as the irreducible complexity of life, and the development of life from non-life. We could in fact take a look at all kinds of hypotheticals. What if Islam were proven to be true? Well, IF it were the case that the Quran was the word of God, then we would have a hard time explaining why the author of the Quran made so many errors regarding the historical understanding of the Trinity within Christian thought. Of course, if ANY other religion were true, then we Christians would have no hope, and our faith would be meaningless. 

In the end, we must be cautious when we dive into the realm of hypotheticals. We also must look for the various presuppositions and assumptions that men bring to the table. That is why I would argue that the conflict is not between science and Scripture, but between rebellious men and a holy God. Science is the discovery and learning of what God has created, but for it to be true science it requires that man recognize his proper position in relationship to his creator.


----------



## Afterthought

I've tried to keep it as brief as I can, especially considering that you will probably be quite busy, but it is hard with this sort of topic. This discussion has been both interesting and nice, but of course, you must see to your own affairs first. Congratulations!



Loopie said:


> I agree that we can interpret those verses figuratively, but there have been (and perhaps are) Christians that believe the sun orbits the earth. When they interpret Scripture that way, you can SHOW them that their hermeneutic is not quite as accurate as it should be. Perhaps they might feel that you are personally attacking the Bible, or trying to undermine God's word. Yet in reality you are showing them that they have made some wrong assumptions about how to interpret the Bible. Do we not do the same thing when we have discussions with Dispensationalists regarding the Rapture?


I'm guessing that by "can interpret" you mean "must interpret." We can indeed show people that they are interpreting a piece of Scripture incorrectly, but I'm fairly certain we show them from the text, not because science says something that purportedly shows our starting assumptions to be wrong (though again, I could be wrong; I do not know whether that is the case).




Loopie said:


> Well, our presuppositions also come from our culture and education. Right now there are many young people who just assume that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is true, and they THEN interpret the Bible in light of that assumption. So our goal is to always to highlight and address the assumptions and presuppositions that people bring to the table. This includes our own presuppositions.
> 
> As for your statement that we cannot 'demonstrate/prove' that the earth orbits the sun, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean to say that regardless of the instruments of measurement that we use, they cannot be considered truthful? What does it mean, in your opinion, to 'prove' something? What would be enough 'proof' to show you that the earth does indeed orbit the sun?
> 
> I understand that some might have an issue with my use of the term 'revealed'. Yet what it means to me is that God, through various means (including his creation) has revealed truths to us. He has provided this entire creation for man to 'discover' and 'subdue'. There is so much for us to learn and discover about God's creation, that in a sense it has been revealed to us. By revealed I mean that God has given us many things to learn, and has provided us with the means to learn them.
> 
> When I say that science can give us 'clarity' regarding what the Bible speaks about, I mean simply that there were many things that we humans could not fully understand when God first gave us his Word. I love the book of Job, as it demonstrates how little men know about how God made the universe (and there is so much we still do not know). Yet we DO know more regarding many things than others in the past have known. Does this increased knowledge help to 'narrow' or 'zoom in on' what the Bible teaches regarding certain things? I would say yes. When God spoke his Word to us, he used terminology of 'pillars' and 'unmoved' regarding the foundation of earth. It does not seem that God was providing a scientific treatise on how exactly the laws of the universe worked. The word that God gave man was enough to enable man to have faith and trust in the Lord (that the Lord has laid a solid foundation for the earth, and that he holds all things together). As time goes on we have come to know a bit more detail about how exactly God has established the cosmos to function. This has not changed what the Bible says. What it has done is simply changed our starting point. No longer do we look at the Bible without any knowledge whatsoever (only theory) regarding the cosmos. Now we approach the Bible with a more complete picture of what is going on out there. By no means do we have exhaustive knowledge of the cosmos, but our knowledge has increased. This does not change what those passages in Scripture mean. God still holds all things together, and he has still set the earth on a solid foundation.


I agree with the first paragraph. I will note in addition that many people come to the Bible believing that the earth is billions of years old and that the sun goes around the earth and that the immutability of species is false and that the universe came from a near singularity.

By "demonstrate/prove", the standard of proof varies per discipline and the certainty derived from such proofs also vary. From the rest of your statements, it sounded to me you were using it in a sense that carries with it such a certainty that it is not unlike the certainty derived from mathematical demonstration. I don't think scientists should claim that sort of certainty for their theories in general. We can trust our senses and observation, but when we start making inferences from those observations about complicated matters (I will note here that the sun-earth question actually touches on some deep, complicated issues in physics, in my opinion, though I doubt many physicists would agree and would simply state with as much certainty you have expressed that the earth goes around the sun and that is that), we cannot claim that sort of certainty, especially given the nature of science as always on the move (though most think it is merely making better approximations over time, rather than a notion of "paradigm"-shifting revolutions; I'm not sure whether either statement can be proved). My apologies if I misunderstood. I will note here that the geocentrist position does not require one to believe the earth going around the sun (to be more precise: that the earth rotates, which is the real thing at issue) and the sun going around the earth are mutually incompatible positions, but there may be a sense in which both are true. Why is this the case? It has to do with the complicated nature of making an absolute statement of motion; but this issue is distinct from the one about the certainty that science can bring when it comes to inferences from observation, so I'll leave it there (I'm fine with the implications and assumptions of our current science that makes the earth rotate and go around the sun, in the particular sense in which our science says it does; I'm just not willing to claim (a) anything more than a provisional certainty or (b) an absolute denial that the other option could be possible in some other sense).

I accept your final definition of "revealed," though I wish we could find a less confusing term.

I think we should distinguish between what the Scriptures say (and imply too, of course) and what objects are involved. If the Scriptures say that plants are to be the food for animals, then it is not unclear what is being said. Science may tell us a lot more about plants and animals, but such is not involved in interpreting the passage. If the Scriptures speak about a foundation for the earth, we must believe all that it is saying and we do not need science to clarify what is being said. But we can use our sciences to learn more about the stability of the earth, as God preserves and governs it in His ordinary working of Providence. It seems to me that here and elsewhere, we do not mean the same things by our terms, e.g., what "Scripture says" and "Clarifying Scripture" means.



Loopie said:


> What causes conflict are the presuppositions and assumptions that are made. There is a BIG difference between saying that Scripture allows for the possibility of the sun orbiting the earth, or the earth orbiting the sun, and saying that there are no such things as miracles (or that God cannot suspend the 'laws of nature' that he himself has established as the normal means by which the cosmos functions). Science SHOULD state that without intervention by God, men do not rise from the dead. That is a TRUE statement. Without God acting in a specific way, no man would rise from the dead. So rather than science causing a conflict with Scripture, you have disobedient rebellious men, holding to presuppositions that are in opposition to God. In this case, it is MAN that is in conflict with God, NOT science. In fact, I would define 'science' as being the acts by which men learn and discover more about God's creation. Based on this understanding of what true science is, it will never be in conflict with Scripture. It might be in conflict with someone's flawed interpretation of Scripture, but that does not demonstrate a weakness in Scripture, only a weakness in man.


Or, of course, it might be in conflict with someone's correct interpretation of Scripture, and so demonstrating the wrong assumptions of science that need to be revised. But anyway, here, as before, it appears our terms are not being used the same way. The question is "What is in conflict with what?" And "What does it mean to "conflict"?" For the first, how God ordinarily governs the universe and how we view the universe from an observational, human perspective is in conflict with how God extraordinarily works in His universe and how God views His universe from an absolute, divine perspective. That the supernatural works different from the natural should be evident. That we may view the universe differently than how God does, should also be evident (this last point is what is at stake in the geocentrism debate, though it seems to me to also be somewhat at stake in other things, such as the age of the earth and evolution). This difference is what I mean by "conflict;" it is not all in our mind, but I grant that it partially results from our finitude and that the conflict lies between what we know from two different areas. When God has revealed (in the usual sense of "revealed;" not your definition above) how He views a part of the universe, we should accept it as absolute. But the way we humans view the universe is quite useful and can shed light on other workings of the universe, even if God views a particular part of it in a different way, because we are observation-based, finite creatures and sometimes cannot function without viewing the universe in a certain way (and of course, because we have a different vantage point and perspective than God has; and obviously, what we see may be completely true from our perspective). Of course, that is an "idealized" situation; given the probabilistic nature of science, we cannot know with certainty whether the observation-based view will ever coincide with the divine view.



Loopie said:


> You are offering a hypothetical situation when you say 'if evolution were proven to be true'. I do not think that is possible. I think such a hypothetical situation cannot exist. Let me tell you a personal experience of mine that will help me to better explain what I mean:


I wasn't sure how you would take the hypothetical. They can sure be annoying sometimes! I ordinarily don't like bringing them up for the reasons you have mentioned, but this time it seemed relevant for seeing the consequences of your view and because we are discussing science, which we must always keep an eye on concerning the latest state of the evidence, which may change quite quickly. I've already mentioned the difference between observation and inference from it concerning complicated matters. Your example of the three-armed man may actually be a good example of a proper use of science (though actually, observation, not the whole of science) when it comes to the Scriptures: like our reason has the judgment of contradiction in interpreting Scripture, perhaps we can do the same thing with observation? The tricky thing here though is that a contradiction of observation is not the same sort of certain judgment that a contradiction of reason is. Of course, here you may say as a reductio, "Well, God simply views men from a perspective in which they have three arms!" To that, I have no answer yet; it could be I overstated my case or that the absurdity really isn't absurd or there is a difference between this and other things the Scriptures may mention, in which case what I said earlier may need some qualification. Thoughts on this? Rev. Winzer? Anyone? Perhaps this is just an illegitimate hypothetical anyway?

And I agree with your description of "true science" in your last paragraph; I would add "from an observational perspective," but such is implicit in the context (since how else can we view things except as men?).


Edit: I just consulted Turretin. It appears he may have proposed a solution to the main topic of the thread long ago...again. I don't have time to type it up right now, but he does mention that the senses are allowed some judgment--under careful conditions--for things that are within its sphere, and he carefully distinguishes between a right use of the senses and reason in judging matters of faith (and so seems to give a careful distinction between a magisterial use of those and a ministerial use). Hence why transubstantiation can be rejected as contrary to common sense and reason (and that answers another question I had in the thread: the "light of nature" seems to be whatever we can learn from reason and the senses). So the thing about the three-armed man can be rejected from the testimony of the senses, and what I said earlier would need to be qualified: probably qualified to "In matters where the senses and reason have no certain judgment." Again, thoughts?


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> I'm guessing that by "can interpret" you mean "must interpret." We can indeed show people that they are interpreting a piece of Scripture incorrectly, but I'm fairly certain we show them from the text, not because science says something that purportedly shows our starting assumptions to be wrong (though again, I could be wrong; I do not know whether that is the case).



I agree that we can show them from Scripture, but you can also show them from extra-Biblical sources. Allow me to quote from both Augustine and Calvin regarding how they viewed the relationship between science and Scripture:

"Ignorance of things, too, renders figurative expressions obscure, as when we do not know the nature of the animals, or minerals, or plants, which are frequently referred to in Scripture by way of comparison. The fact so well known about the serpent, for example, that to protect its head it will present its whole body to its assailants--how much light it throws upon the meaning of our Lord's command, that we should be wise as serpents; that is to say, that for the sake of our head, which is Christ, we should willingly offer our body to the persecutors, lest the Christian faith should, as it were, be destroyed in us, if to save the body we deny our God! Or again, the statement that the serpent gets rid of its old skin by squeezing itself through a narrow hole, and thus acquires new strength--how appropriately it fits in with the direction to imitate the wisdom of the serpent, and to put off the old man, as the apostle says, that we may put on the new; and to put it off, too, by coming through a narrow place, according to the saying of our Lord, "Enter ye in at the strait gate!" *As, then, knowledge of the nature of the serpent throws light upon many metaphors which Scripture is accustomed to draw from that animal, so ignorance of other animals, which are no less frequently mentioned by way of comparison, is a very great drawback to the reader. *And so in regard to minerals and plants: knowledge of the carbuncle, for instance, which shines in the dark, throws light upon many of the dark places in books too, where it is used metaphorically; and ignorance of the beryl or the adamant often shuts the doors of knowledge. And the only reason why we find it easy to understand that perpetual peace is indicated by the olive branch which the dove brought with it when it returned to the ark, is that we know both that the smooth touch of olive oil is not easily spoiled by a fluid of another kind, and that the tree itself is an evergreen. Many, again, by reason of their ignorance of hyssop, not knowing the virtue it has in cleansing the lungs, nor the power it is said to have of piercing rocks with its roots, although it is a small and insignificant plant, cannot make out why it is said, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II)

"The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskillfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

Was Augustine wrong for using extra-biblical information to enhance his understanding of Scripture? Was Calvin wrong in harmonizing what the astronomers and what Scripture was saying? I am curious as to what you think regarding the above quotes.



Afterthought said:


> I agree with the first paragraph. I will note in addition that many people come to the Bible believing that the earth is billions of years old and that the sun goes around the earth and that the immutability of species is false and that the universe came from a near singularity.
> 
> By "demonstrate/prove", the standard of proof varies per discipline and the certainty derived from such proofs also vary. From the rest of your statements, it sounded to me you were using it in a sense that carries with it such a certainty that it is not unlike the certainty derived from mathematical demonstration. I don't think scientists should claim that sort of certainty for their theories in general. We can trust our senses and observation, but when we start making inferences from those observations about complicated matters (I will note here that the sun-earth question actually touches on some deep, complicated issues in physics, in my opinion, though I doubt many physicists would agree and would simply state with as much certainty you have expressed that the earth goes around the sun and that is that), we cannot claim that sort of certainty, especially given the nature of science as always on the move (though most think it is merely making better approximations over time, rather than a notion of "paradigm"-shifting revolutions; I'm not sure whether either statement can be proved). My apologies if I misunderstood. I will note here that the geocentrist position does not require one to believe the earth going around the sun (to be more precise: that the earth rotates, which is the real thing at issue) and the sun going around the earth are mutually incompatible positions, but there may be a sense in which both are true. Why is this the case? It has to do with the complicated nature of making an absolute statement of motion; but this issue is distinct from the one about the certainty that science can bring when it comes to inferences from observation, so I'll leave it there (I'm fine with the implications and assumptions of our current science that makes the earth rotate and go around the sun, in the particular sense in which our science says it does; I'm just not willing to claim (a) anything more than a provisional certainty or (b) an absolute denial that the other option could be possible in some other sense).



So let me ask you this: do you believe right now that the earth orbits the sun? If so, why? Is it because Scripture explicitly says that it does, or because men have discovered that it does?



Afterthought said:


> I think we should distinguish between what the Scriptures say (and imply too, of course) and what objects are involved. If the Scriptures say that plants are to be the food for animals, then it is not unclear what is being said. Science may tell us a lot more about plants and animals, but such is not involved in interpreting the passage. If the Scriptures speak about a foundation for the earth, we must believe all that it is saying and we do not need science to clarify what is being said. But we can use our sciences to learn more about the stability of the earth, as God preserves and governs it in His ordinary working of Providence. It seems to me that here and elsewhere, we do not mean the same things by our terms, e.g., what "Scripture says" and "Clarifying Scripture" means.



You are right, and we need to be clear about the terms that we are using. All I am saying is that the Bible does not tell us whether the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun. A person who lived 2000 years ago would have read those verses in the Bible concerning the 'foundation' and 'pillar' of the earth, and would have 'imagined' or 'thought' something different than what we would 'imagine' or 'picture' in our mind today when reading those verses. We read those verses from the standpoint of a 21st century Christian. This does not mean that we are better or more able to handle scripture. It just means that we come from different starting points. But I WOULD say that our understanding of the cosmos is 'more clear' than the understanding of someone living back then. The verse still says the same thing regarding the Lord's role in sustaining and establishing the universe. But now we have a 'fuller' picture of what God has done, and reading those verses brings that to our minds.



Afterthought said:


> Or, of course, it might be in conflict with someone's correct interpretation of Scripture, and so demonstrating the wrong assumptions of science that need to be revised. But anyway, here, as before, it appears our terms are not being used the same way. The question is "What is in conflict with what?" And "What does it mean to "conflict"?" For the first, how God ordinarily governs the universe and how we view the universe from an observational, human perspective is in conflict with how God extraordinarily works in His universe and how God views His universe from an absolute, divine perspective. That the supernatural works different from the natural should be evident.



I do not view 'different' as being 'conflicting'. I recognize that God could act in a miraculous way at any time, suspending the laws of nature as he sees fit. I would recognize a 'difference' in mode of operation, but I would not see it as a conflict. Only those who are unwilling to allow for miracles see 'conflicts' that bother them.



Afterthought said:


> That we may view the universe differently than how God does, should also be evident (this last point is what is at stake in the geocentrism debate, though it seems to me to also be somewhat at stake in other things, such as the age of the earth and evolution). This difference is what I mean by "conflict;" it is not all in our mind, but I grant that it partially results from our finitude and that the conflict lies between what we know from two different areas. When God has revealed (in the usual sense of "revealed;" not your definition above) how He views a part of the universe, we should accept it as absolute. But the way we humans view the universe is quite useful and can shed light on other workings of the universe, even if God views a particular part of it in a different way, because we are observation-based, finite creatures and sometimes cannot function without viewing the universe in a certain way (and of course, because we have a different vantage point and perspective than God has; and obviously, what we see may be completely true from our perspective). Of course, that is an "idealized" situation; given the probabilistic nature of science, we cannot know with certainty whether the observation-based view will ever coincide with the divine view.



I suppose we cannot view such things with the level of certainty that God himself has. With that in mind, why do you believe the things you do that are not found in Scripture? Again I must ask: do you believe the earth orbits the sun? If so, why?



Afterthought said:


> I wasn't sure how you would take the hypothetical. They can sure be annoying sometimes! I ordinarily don't like bringing them up for the reasons you have mentioned, but this time it seemed relevant for seeing the consequences of your view and because we are discussing science, which we must always keep an eye on concerning the latest state of the evidence, which may change quite quickly. I've already mentioned the difference between observation and inference from it concerning complicated matters. Your example of the three-armed man may actually be a good example of a proper use of science (though actually, observation, not the whole of science) when it comes to the Scriptures: like our reason has the judgment of contradiction in interpreting Scripture, perhaps we can do the same thing with observation? The tricky thing here though is that a contradiction of observation is not the same sort of certain judgment that a contradiction of reason is. Of course, here you may say as a reductio, "Well, God simply views men from a perspective in which they have three arms!" To that, I have no answer yet; it could be I overstated my case or that the absurdity really isn't absurd or there is a difference between this and other things the Scriptures may mention, in which case what I said earlier may need some qualification. Thoughts on this? Rev. Winzer? Anyone? Perhaps this is just an illegitimate hypothetical anyway?



I too would be happy to hear what some others on the PB have to say regarding this very interesting discussion.



Afterthought said:


> Edit: I just consulted Turretin. It appears he may have proposed a solution to the main topic of the thread long ago...again. I don't have time to type it up right now, but he does mention that the senses are allowed some judgment--under careful conditions--for things that are within its sphere, and he carefully distinguishes between a right use of the senses and reason in judging matters of faith (and so seems to give a careful distinction between a magisterial use of those and a ministerial use). Hence why transubstantiation can be rejected as contrary to common sense and reason (and that answers another question I had in the thread: the "light of nature" seems to be whatever we can learn from reason and the senses). So the thing about the three-armed man can be rejected from the testimony of the senses, and what I said earlier would need to be qualified: probably qualified to "In matters where the senses and reason have no certain judgment." Again, thoughts?



I will definitely have to do some more searches on other threads as well. It is true that I often use 'logic' and 'reason' to demonstrate the silliness of the Roman Catholic position of transubstantiation. Of course, I do believe that they are making a faulty interpretation of Scripture regarding Jesus being the 'bread of life'. But then again, they hold to the three legged stool of the magisterium, tradition, and Scripture, not just Scripture.

Great discussion so far, and I think we are both kind of on the same page, although perhaps saying things in a slightly different way. We both are strong advocates of what Scripture teaches, and neither of us would ever be comfortable suggesting that Scripture is flawed, or that it does not line up perfectly with human history, archaeology, astronomy, or any other scientific endeavor. Would you agree with that?


----------



## Afterthought

I'll get to replying soon. I've recently become aware that grad school applications are coming up soon, so I've been busy researching various schools and stuff. For the moment though, a brief summary of what I found in Turretin. This was rather quickly put togther, but hopefully it is useful for the thread's topic.


Allowed to use something from Creation to use as an opportunity of teaching and illustrating a doctrine; seen in parables; do not see in parables deriving/ doctrine from nature.

Difference between truth of propositions and truth of conclusions. Right reason allowed to determine truth of conclusions and what may be inferred from something.

Right reason may determine the "reason of a consequence", i.e., whether the argument is valid.

Revealed truth not at variance with natural truth. Never contradicts reason but can be beyond reason. However, revealed truth can be opposed to conclusions of reason, since they are less sure, are obscure, and are prone to error; never opposed to the first principles of reason though cause those first principles are sure and true.

Reason does get a judgment in matters of faith concerning the truth of conclusions, but also concerning the truth of propositions when those propositions are known by nature. However, (1) the judgment of reason cannot be seen as necessary for theology to operate, (2) the Scriptures (in which these sorts of truths may also be revealed) are the primary rule while reason is the secondary, (3) when the Scriptures add something "unknown to nature" to something "known by nature", then the judgment belongs to the Scriptures, not reason.

Of course, in things known only by revelation, the only rule of judgment is the Scriptures.

V. Further, (1) There are first principles of reason that are unquestionably true. (2) They are true in nature and in Scripture. Scripture doesn't destroy these but uses them. (3) And reason and faith are not opposed, despite being of different classes (one natural, the other supernatural). They are subordinate to each other. "Reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason, uopn which to found the mysteries of grace."

Vi. Further, (1) Reason is not allowed to create doctrine. (2) Reason cannot justly complain if it cannot understand the truths of Scripture. (3) Reason "must not be heard when it wishes, by overturning the questionable truth of the first principles of natural religion, to establish its own errors under the pretext of their being mysteries of faith (either as to things merely natural or supernatural or mixed) which grace borrows from nature for its own use. Hence right reason ought to reject these fictions as incompatible with the indubitable first principles of natural religion."

Difference between knowing meaning of proposition and knowing its truth. Reason is concerned with knowing the meaning of a proposition.

Difference between incomprehensible thing and incompossible; Reason may reject incompossible things.

X. "Reason as corrupt and in the concrete may be at variance with theology, but not reason as sound and in the abstract (which possibly may be ignorant of mysteries and may not teach them, but must not therefore be considered as depending on them)."

Tenth Question.
III. Judgment of contradiction allowed to (enlightened) reason but (1) a revelation and its truth is worthy of faith in and of itself, (2) reason must act "organically and ministerially" not "despotically and authoritatively", (3) reason must act in conformity with Scripture, which "clearly interprets itself and requires no other interpreter to establish its sense." So reason (enlightened by the Spirit through the Word) can judge how parts of doctrine fit together and the consequences of those doctrines.

IX. Reason can judge both formal and indirect contradictions.

XIV. Judgment of contradiction does not become "rule of divine power (as if God could not do more things than human reason can conceive). God's being able to do something above nature and human conception (which is said with truth in Eph. 3:20) is different from his being able to do something contrary to nature and the principles of natural religion (which is most false)."

XV. "Reason cannot judge of the power of God so as to comprehend it most perfectly, or to think those things impossible which are above nature, or to inroduce something into theology under the pretext of divine power unless it has gathered it beforehand from the word..."

XVI. Reason cannot judge in matters that are "of a revealed and mysterious truth which is infinitely exalted above its sphere and delivered by God whose thoughts (how immense!) are far above human thoughts..."

Eleventh Question.
VII. Senses not absolutely infallible, but senses are not deceived and can judge in things that come under their sphere when (1) "the object be at a proper distance", (2) "the medium be pure and free from everything which could distort the image", (3) "the organ be rightly disposed", (4) all the senses that can judge in this matter concur in their judgment, (5) "the senses act carefully and not hastily" so as not to be deceived, (6) a person is in good physical and mental health so that the senses are not distorted by those.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> I agree that we can show them from Scripture, but you can also show them from extra-Biblical sources. Allow me to quote from both Augustine and Calvin regarding how they viewed the relationship between science and Scripture:


I very much doubt that demonstrating that someone's _biblical_ interpretation is in general allowed to be done by _extra-biblical_ sources. I say in general, because of the various exceptions such as the judgment of contradiction of reason and senses. But nevertheless, even with such extra-biblical tools, the interpretation must be demonstrated to be wrong for biblical reasons only (and when they apply, must be done in addition to using those special exceptions). At least, that's what I've always understood about these things.

As for Augustine, it is difficult to respond because the (what seems to me) rather speculative things he noted about _understanding_ Scripture makes it difficult to judge the principles rather than the particular. However, it seems to me that (1) certain sorts of knowledge about animals and the background of Scripture fall under the category of things that were noted earlier to fall into the hermeneutical spiral (I'm quite sure that for the figurative expression, the literal referent must be understood); (2) that we need to distinguish between interpretation and application; (3) we should probably not classify are knowledge of natural things (when they are not part of the hermeneutical spiral) as enhancing our understanding of Scripture (by which I mean, what Scripture says), since such seems to fall into interpreting Scripture by extra-biblical means, with all the problems that result (such as having an interpretation that changes with our knowledge and that is only ever probable); (4) as Turretin noted above, it is fine to use natural things as illustrations of Scriptural truth.

Having said all that, I think I could admit some of what Augustine was doing as falling under (1), and I could admit other things as falling under the application and illustration of Scripture. However, it seems to me using our knowledge of natural things for illustration, and especially application (which tends to have the force of "You ought to do this" behind it) should be done with care, since our knowledge of natural things is (often) only probable and changing. I don't think I could admit anything he said that can be classed as interpreting Scripture that is outside of (1). Whether Augustine fell into that or not, I'm still not certain, despite the bolded statement, and I'm hesitant to criticize him given the little I know about Biblical interpretation. (If it is apparent from my posts here that I am wrong in my understanding of interpreting, applying, and illustrating Scripture, I'd appreciate correction. Same for correction as to what Augustine was up to.) Regardless, these sorts of statements seem quite a bit different from the statements of those who wish to affirm or deny a certain age for Creation, evolution, geocentrism, miracles, or the immutability of species.

As for Calvin, I have no hesitation in agreeing. He put the astronomers in their place without allowing what they said to influence his interpretation of Scripture and without degrading the "art" of astronomy. In this case, the problem was artificially created by the astronomers by not paying attention to what Scripture was saying (that is, by using unbiblical principles of interpretation), and so Calvin deals with them by showing what Scripture is actually saying using biblical principles of interpretation, which when done, it turns out there's no problem. Calvin does something similar later in rejecting heliocentrism, If I recall correctly (but it's been a while since I read his statements on that).




Loopie said:


> So let me ask you this: do you believe right now that the earth orbits the sun? If so, why? Is it because Scripture explicitly says that it does, or because men have discovered that it does?
> I suppose we cannot view such things with the level of certainty that God himself has. With that in mind, why do you believe the things you do that are not found in Scripture? Again I must ask: do you believe the earth orbits the sun? If so, why?


I believe our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, having been created by God. Hence, I have no problem believing things that Scripture does not specifically address. The confidence I assign to such beliefs will vary according to the strength of the evidence I perceive to support those other beliefs, within each belief-field's standard of proof. Hence, as I have noted, I have no problem with our current science on many things and with a confidence that depends on the support for them, though with the qualifications noted before concerning "conflicts" between "true science" and Scripture and concerning that I hold scientific beliefs with provisional certainty.

With respect to the specific instance of the earth orbiting the sun, I also had mentioned I have no problem believing such (that the earth orbits the sun with respect to the sun) on scientific grounds (not on Scripture grounds; there's not a hint that the earth orbits the sun in Scripture), in the sense that science states it does and with the understanding that has been developed in this thread concerning science's epistemic limitations. Though of course, I hold such with a provisional certainty, and I do not wish to scientifically deny the other possibility (that not only does the sun orbit the earth with respect to the earth but that the earth's rotation allows for an understanding of some sort of geocentrism that is consistent with Scripture, if indeed Scripture teaches such) in this case, given the rather complicated nature of the question (though as I have mentioned, I do not yet know of a solid scientific possibility for such to occur, given the data we currently have and scientific theories we currently have, though there's the speculative option of "perfect frame dragging;" given those, it certainly seems the earth is rotating as well as orbiting the sun with respect to the sun). I think that "provisional certainty" is the attitude one should have in science--at the very least in physics and certain other natural sciences, and perhaps in many (if not all other non-theological) sciences.



Loopie said:


> All I am saying is that the Bible does not tell us whether the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun.


In which case, we should not say "Scripture says" or that "We have a better understanding of Scripture on this matter." If Scripture doesn't say something on a matter, then there is nothing to understand it to say on that matter. So it seems to me. I have no problem with what you said after this as a psychological principle (that is, that our background will influence what thoughts the reading of Scripture brings to our minds on issues, even issues on which Scripture says nothing).



Loopie said:


> I do not view 'different' as being 'conflicting'. I recognize that God could act in a miraculous way at any time, suspending the laws of nature as he sees fit. I would recognize a 'difference' in mode of operation, but I would not see it as a conflict. Only those who are unwilling to allow for miracles see 'conflicts' that bother them.


I think that "conflict" is still a good word here, in the context of certain peculiar debates in which some say "True science cannot contradict Scripture and some science we have now is false" and others "True science may contradict Scripture and the science we have now is true" but both assume "True science has something to say in this matter; if it speaks contrary to Scripture, then that's a problem for Scripture" and both seem to take science outside its epistemic limitations, and yet I have no problem with standard scientific methodology in general and so have no desire to see it modified under those who speak the first statement. Perhaps there's some unusual meaning pumped into those phrases in that context. However, it seems to me you understand what is being said, so I won't press the matter...this time anyway!  At any rate, I'll have to be careful when using the word "conflict", since it apparently carries some connotational baggage in the minds of some that I do not intend.



Loopie said:


> Great discussion so far, and I think we are both kind of on the same page, although perhaps saying things in a slightly different way. We both are strong advocates of what Scripture teaches, and neither of us would ever be comfortable suggesting that Scripture is flawed, or that it does not line up perfectly with human history, archaeology, astronomy, or any other scientific endeavor. Would you agree with that?


I agree, if by "line up" you mean "there is always some ultimate resolution (that is, ultimately, it does line up perfectly once all the epistemic limitations are taken into account) in principle, though perhaps not in practice due to our finite, human perspective or lack of Scriptural or observational data (e.g., seeing "non-existant" stars explode)", which given what you have said in this thread, you most probably do mean something along those lines.


----------



## MW

Science and Scripture need explanation. A Science that is established purely on the basis of sensory perception (empiricism) can and will contradict a Scripture which reveals the unseen God (inspiration). I think we can allow such a science its own domain as long as we also impose limitations upon it. Let them make all the observations they please on the body of death, it will not nullify the promise of life. Their observations might also prove useful when the body of death needs help moving along or comfort in finally giving up the ghost. But their observations do not provide an ultimate interpretation of life. What applies to the body of death will also apply to the heavenly bodies. If it takes heliocentrism to get man to the moon, so be it; that is a limited perspective; it does nothing to unsettle the geocentric message of the Bible.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> I very much doubt that demonstrating that someone's _biblical_ interpretation is in general allowed to be done by _extra-biblical_ sources. I say in general, because of the various exceptions such as the judgment of contradiction of reason and senses. But nevertheless, even with such extra-biblical tools, the interpretation must be demonstrated to be wrong for biblical reasons only (and when they apply, must be done in addition to using those special exceptions). At least, that's what I've always understood about these things.
> 
> As for Augustine, it is difficult to respond because the (what seems to me) rather speculative things he noted about _understanding_ Scripture makes it difficult to judge the principles rather than the particular. However, it seems to me that (1) certain sorts of knowledge about animals and the background of Scripture fall under the category of things that were noted earlier to fall into the hermeneutical spiral (I'm quite sure that for the figurative expression, the literal referent must be understood); (2) that we need to distinguish between interpretation and application; (3) we should probably not classify are knowledge of natural things (when they are not part of the hermeneutical spiral) as enhancing our understanding of Scripture (by which I mean, what Scripture says), since such seems to fall into interpreting Scripture by extra-biblical means, with all the problems that result (such as having an interpretation that changes with our knowledge and that is only ever probable); (4) as Turretin noted above, it is fine to use natural things as illustrations of Scriptural truth.
> 
> Having said all that, I think I could admit some of what Augustine was doing as falling under (1), and I could admit other things as falling under the application and illustration of Scripture. However, it seems to me using our knowledge of natural things for illustration, and especially application (which tends to have the force of "You ought to do this" behind it) should be done with care, since our knowledge of natural things is (often) only probable and changing. I don't think I could admit anything he said that can be classed as interpreting Scripture that is outside of (1). Whether Augustine fell into that or not, I'm still not certain, despite the bolded statement, and I'm hesitant to criticize him given the little I know about Biblical interpretation. (If it is apparent from my posts here that I am wrong in my understanding of interpreting, applying, and illustrating Scripture, I'd appreciate correction. Same for correction as to what Augustine was up to.) Regardless, these sorts of statements seem quite a bit different from the statements of those who wish to affirm or deny a certain age for Creation, evolution, geocentrism, miracles, or the immutability of species.
> 
> As for Calvin, I have no hesitation in agreeing. He put the astronomers in their place without allowing what they said to influence his interpretation of Scripture and without degrading the "art" of astronomy. In this case, the problem was artificially created by the astronomers by not paying attention to what Scripture was saying (that is, by using unbiblical principles of interpretation), and so Calvin deals with them by showing what Scripture is actually saying using biblical principles of interpretation, which when done, it turns out there's no problem. Calvin does something similar later in rejecting heliocentrism, If I recall correctly (but it's been a while since I read his statements on that).



I certainly think that we are more on the same page than we might have imagined. I would simply like to offer a quick scenario: If someone were to have no knowledge whatsoever of reptiles (particularly snakes), then when they read passages about being as shrewd as serpents, or about the Pharisees being a brood of vipers, they would have a difficult time understanding what those passages are really trying to say. Even though they can find other verses in the Bible that talk about vipers and serpents, there is not a great amount of specific information there regarding those types of creatures. If the person were to have a working knowledge of those creatures, they might come to better appreciate or fully understand those passages. 

In this scenario, all I am suggesting is that even though the MEANING of the Bible has not changed, our understanding of it has, because our understanding has grown. The man who has never seen nor heard of a viper/serpent is going to have a harder time understanding what Scripture is saying. Scripture itself is perfectly clear, but we see that the original author assumed that the intended audience had a specific understanding of nature. That is perfectly ok from my perspective. How I understand the relationship between Science and Scripture is that TRUE (correct) science, can only operate from a proper standpoint of perspective (a God-centered standpoint). In that case science becomes a tool by which we increase our own knowledge of God's creation. Essentially, the science does not affect or change the Bible, but it affects and changes our minds. It 'prepares' our minds for what God is telling us. If I want to be true to God's word, I first try to step into the shoes of the original audience. I study historical/theological context, as well as original languages. That way, I can ensure that I will not be bringing modern presuppositions to the text, which would 'corrupt' my understanding or interpretation of Scripture. So from one angle it might look like science is 'clarifying' Scripture. But in reality I think TRUE (God-centered) science (as well as all other disciplines such as linguistics, history, and archaeology), can prepare our minds (like prepared soil) for the seed of God's word. It never 'changes' God's word, but it simply makes us a 'more attentive and prepared' audience.



Afterthought said:


> I believe our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, having been created by God. Hence, I have no problem believing things that Scripture does not specifically address. The confidence I assign to such beliefs will vary according to the strength of the evidence I perceive to support those other beliefs, within each belief-field's standard of proof. Hence, as I have noted, I have no problem with our current science on many things and with a confidence that depends on the support for them, though with the qualifications noted before concerning "conflicts" between "true science" and Scripture and concerning that I hold scientific beliefs with provisional certainty.



I agree with you completely.



Afterthought said:


> With respect to the specific instance of the earth orbiting the sun, I also had mentioned I have no problem believing such (that the earth orbits the sun with respect to the sun) on scientific grounds (not on Scripture grounds; there's not a hint that the earth orbits the sun in Scripture), in the sense that science states it does and with the understanding that has been developed in this thread concerning science's epistemic limitations. Though of course, I hold such with a provisional certainty, and I do not wish to scientifically deny the other possibility (that not only does the sun orbit the earth with respect to the earth but that the earth's rotation allows for an understanding of some sort of geocentrism that is consistent with Scripture, if indeed Scripture teaches such) in this case, given the rather complicated nature of the question (though as I have mentioned, I do not yet know of a solid scientific possibility for such to occur, given the data we currently have and scientific theories we currently have, though there's the speculative option of "perfect frame dragging;" given those, it certainly seems the earth is rotating as well as orbiting the sun with respect to the sun). I think that "provisional certainty" is the attitude one should have in science--at the very least in physics and certain other natural sciences, and perhaps in many (if not all other non-theological) sciences.



I agree. Our scientific beliefs are 'provisional' in that sense. But we do not use that as a means to avoid critically thinking about our own hermeneutical method, or as a means to avoid dealing with a text we are uncomfortable with. What I mean is, I am sure that there were Christians who fought tooth and nail against the idea that the earth revolved/orbited the sun. Why did they do this? Likely it was because they thought they already had a proper/correct hermeneutical method, and that this 'new science' was threatening the very word of God. Ultimately, they were restricting the Bible as saying something that it was not necessarily saying. I think the 'new science' helped bring to the foreground some assumptions and presuppositions that the geocentrist Christians were holding. In the end, I firmly believe that since the Bible is true, we should feel perfectly confident that 'proper', 'true' science will line up perfectly with what God has said. How could it not? If someone is utilizing correct hermeneutical principles, while also engaging in a true, God-centered scientific method, the two SHOULD line up perfectly.



Afterthought said:


> In which case, we should not say "Scripture says" or that "We have a better understanding of Scripture on this matter." If Scripture doesn't say something on a matter, then there is nothing to understand it to say on that matter. So it seems to me. I have no problem with what you said after this as a psychological principle (that is, that our background will influence what thoughts the reading of Scripture brings to our minds on issues, even issues on which Scripture says nothing).



Agree.



Afterthought said:


> I think that "conflict" is still a good word here, in the context of certain peculiar debates in which some say "True science cannot contradict Scripture and some science we have now is false" and others "True science may contradict Scripture and the science we have now is true" but both assume "True science has something to say in this matter; if it speaks contrary to Scripture, then that's a problem for Scripture" and both seem to take science outside its epistemic limitations, and yet I have no problem with standard scientific methodology in general and so have no desire to see it modified under those who speak the first statement.



What is standard scientific methodology? I do not believe that those who advocate neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are employing this methodology. I do not believe they are engaging in true science.



Afterthought said:


> I agree, if by "line up" you mean "there is always some ultimate resolution (that is, ultimately, it does line up perfectly once all the epistemic limitations are taken into account) in principle, though perhaps not in practice due to our finite, human perspective or lack of Scriptural or observational data (e.g., seeing "non-existant" stars explode)", which given what you have said in this thread, you most probably do mean something along those lines.



On this we are in complete, total agreement. It certainly seems that we agree much more than we disagree brother!


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Science and Scripture need explanation. A Science that is established purely on the basis of sensory perception (empiricism) can and will contradict a Scripture which reveals the unseen God (inspiration). I think we can allow such a science its own domain as long as we also impose limitations upon it. Let them make all the observations they please on the body of death, it will not nullify the promise of life. Their observations might also prove useful when the body of death needs help moving along or comfort in finally giving up the ghost. But their observations do not provide an ultimate interpretation of life. What applies to the body of death will also apply to the heavenly bodies. If it takes heliocentrism to get man to the moon, so be it; that is a limited perspective; it does nothing to unsettle the geocentric message of the Bible.


I agree! It certainly makes sense that the data we gain from one perspective will contradict the data we gain from another perspective, given how different those perspectives are. An analogy I've been thinking about is how when we see an object sitting on a table, one perspective would suggest it changes shape, size, color, and perhaps even moves. Nevertheless, we know from a more "absolute" perspective that the object isn't "really" changing, but is the same object all along. (I suppose one problem with this analogy is that it falls into the philosophical problems of primary and secondary qualities, but it does show how the data from one perspective can contradict the data from another, and how one perspective can be limited while the other "absolute.")

From further thought, it seems to me that this view actually is sufficient to address "appearances of history." We can accept, for example, that we are seeing real stars explode. The problem of seeing non-existant stars only arises when we try to put theology into the realm of science. By keeping each to their own realm, we can make a good case for not knowing how God created things such that we could see stars, that according to our science never existed unless they were much more than a few thousand years old. And having made a justified appeal to ignorance (which is ignorance of the miracle of Creation and so can't be expected to be understood in natural terms anyway), we can with intellectual integreity simultaneously accept with the provisional certainty that science gives that we are seeing real stars explode and accept with the certainty that Scripture gives that the Creation is not as old as our limited, natural perspective would seem to suggest. Would this be a fair analysis of solving "appearances of history" on this view?

Also, some in the past (I think William Cunningham explicitly mentioned this?) have argued for the confirmation of the Scripture's truthfulness by noting that we find it true to our experience in each and every case that it speaks to. Since empiricism is so connected to experience, how does this argument for Scripture fit in with the "two domains of knowledge" view presented above? My best guess is that the experience referred to by people such as Cunningham (?) is stuff we actually experience and so is generally reliable, which is quite a bit different from such inferences from our experience that we could never hope to experience for ourselves.


----------



## Afterthought

Yes, it does seem there is much agreement.



Loopie said:


> Our scientific beliefs are 'provisional' in that sense. But we do not use that as a means to avoid critically thinking about our own hermeneutical method, or as a means to avoid dealing with a text we are uncomfortable with. What I mean is, I am sure that there were Christians who fought tooth and nail against the idea that the earth revolved/orbited the sun. Why did they do this? Likely it was because they thought they already had a proper/correct hermeneutical method, and that this 'new science' was threatening the very word of God. Ultimately, they were restricting the Bible as saying something that it was not necessarily saying. I think the 'new science' helped bring to the foreground some assumptions and presuppositions that the geocentrist Christians were holding. In the end, I firmly believe that since the Bible is true, we should feel perfectly confident that 'proper', 'true' science will line up perfectly with what God has said. How could it not? If someone is utilizing correct hermeneutical principles, while also engaging in a true, God-centered scientific method, the two SHOULD line up perfectly.


Given the understanding of "line up" that you have agreed to, then I can accept the last statement. However, I don't think that science should affect or correct our hermeneutical principles, since I'm fairly certain our principles are derived on unchanging grounds. And as for applying those hermeneutical principles, science shouldn't have a say in the matter either. Basically, science has its own rules governing its use and biblical interpretation has its own different set of rules. If a passage was interpreted with the correct biblical rules of interpretation, then it doesn't matter what science says on that issue, and one shouldn't be seeking "possible" interpretations that may be more palatable to science. But these are things you would agree with.

Clearly, you believe that the geocentrist interpretation was not made according to proper rules and milked more out of the passages than what was revealed; and so you see science as having provided a psychological opportunity for people to re-evaluate whether they had conducted their interpretation along proper lines. No doubt that the scientific case against geocentrism of any sort--as with the immutability of species--is certainly quite daunting enough to have caused such (I've mentioned a few reasons why, but I'll add another: the Focault pendulum and gyroscope). Is this legitimate? If it is, I don't think it could be used to try to "level" the authority between Scripture and science--as is often done--by saying, "Well, one of our interpretations of our sources must therefore be wrong, and it could just as well be our interpretation of Scripture as our information from science." I'm not yet sure how to word this "psychological opportunity" without it sounding like it implies the above.



Loopie said:


> What is standard scientific methodology? I do not believe that those who advocate neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are employing this methodology. I do not believe they are engaging in true science.


Observation --> Empirical, consistent Hypothesis to explain observations --> Empirically Falsifiable Prediction by deduction from Hypothesis --> Experiment to test said prediction --> Hypothesis in need of revision or is confirmed, sometimes to the point that people feel comfortable calling it a "theory", or a "law", or simply "what reality is like." Basically, it seems to be a combination of a dash of inductivism with much hypothetico-deductivism and a falsifiability condition thrown in to further reduce the limits of imagination. There may be more to it though, or even less, and no doubt I've simplified matters. Philosophy of science is quite interesting. Whether the evolutionary theory you mention employs standard methodology or not, I would need to study more to see. But it could also be the case of right methodology but not enough facts to warrant stating it is what reality is like. I wonder whether evolutionary theory can only be brought to a non-speculative level by looking at history (since it is given not merely as an explanation of observed biological similarities but also as an explanation of "how we got here" after life began), and so that's why it cannot be treated under the "two domains of knowledge" scheme; though I wonder what the difference is between that and "appearances of history".


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> Given the understanding of "line up" that you have agreed to, then I can accept the last statement. However, I don't think that science should affect or correct our hermeneutical principles, since I'm fairly certain our principles are derived on unchanging grounds. And as for applying those hermeneutical principles, science shouldn't have a say in the matter either. Basically, science has its own rules governing its use and biblical interpretation has its own different set of rules. If a passage was interpreted with the correct biblical rules of interpretation, then it doesn't matter what science says on that issue, and one shouldn't be seeking "possible" interpretations that may be more palatable to science. But these are things you would agree with.



I think that we simply have a different understanding of science. To me, science is just as simple as sticking your hand into a fire and recognizing that you get burned every time. It is observing that similar causes have similar effects, and that there is a uniformity of nature. It is observing that when you drop two objects from the same height, they will arrive at the ground at the exact same time (barring effects of the wind). And so, I honestly do believe that 'science' can lead us to think critically about our hermeneutical principles. This is because hermeneutical principles do not just come from Scripture, they also come from general rules of logic. For instance, it is proper to read Scripture within its historical context. But one does not have to read Scripture in order to figure out that it is always good to read things within their historical context. Reading something within the proper historical context (who the author is, who the audience is, etc.) is applicable in studying all literature. With that being said, I certainly believe that if someone has a very skewed hermeneutic, 'scientific' discoveries can lead them to think critically about how they used to read Scripture. 



Afterthought said:


> Clearly, you believe that the geocentrist interpretation was not made according to proper rules and milked more out of the passages than what was revealed; and so you see science as having provided a psychological opportunity for people to re-evaluate whether they had conducted their interpretation along proper lines. No doubt that the scientific case against geocentrism of any sort--as with the immutability of species--is certainly quite daunting enough to have caused such (I've mentioned a few reasons why, but I'll add another: the Focault pendulum and gyroscope). Is this legitimate? If it is, I don't think it could be used to try to "level" the authority between Scripture and science--as is often done--by saying, "Well, one of our interpretations of our sources must therefore be wrong, and it could just as well be our interpretation of Scripture as our information from science." I'm not yet sure how to word this "psychological opportunity" without it sounding like it implies the above.



I am not so prideful as to think that my personal interpretation of Scripture trumps what is revealed in science. Again, I am not at all suggesting that science actually trumps Scripture. Rather, simple observation of God's creation should lead us to highlight and address any of our own presuppositions. Ultimately, I would certainly agree with you that we are not to 'level' the authority between Scripture and science. Scripture is always of the highest authority, but just because Scripture itself is of the highest authority does not mean that I am doing a good job understanding and interpreting it. I always must watch out for any unwarranted presuppositions that I bring to the table when I read God's word. Observing God's creation can help me to become aware of my own presuppositions.



Afterthought said:


> Observation --> Empirical, consistent Hypothesis to explain observations --> Empirically Falsifiable Prediction by deduction from Hypothesis --> Experiment to test said prediction --> Hypothesis in need of revision or is confirmed, sometimes to the point that people feel comfortable calling it a "theory", or a "law", or simply "what reality is like." Basically, it seems to be a combination of a dash of inductivism with much hypothetico-deductivism and a falsifiability condition thrown in to further reduce the limits of imagination. There may be more to it though, or even less, and no doubt I've simplified matters. Philosophy of science is quite interesting. Whether the evolutionary theory you mention employs standard methodology or not, I would need to study more to see. But it could also be the case of right methodology but not enough facts to warrant stating it is what reality is like. I wonder whether evolutionary theory can only be brought to a non-speculative level by looking at history (since it is given not merely as an explanation of observed biological similarities but also as an explanation of "how we got here" after life began), and so that's why it cannot be treated under the "two domains of knowledge" scheme; though I wonder what the difference is between that and "appearances of history".



I honestly do not believe that the methodology of evolutionary theory is correct. In your own description of science, you spoke of 'experiments' that could be falsifiable, and could be repeated. In evolutionary theory, no experiments could be made that could make it falsifiable. It is merely a theory (and more of a philosophy than actual science). You and I both have a strong skepticism of evolutionary theory, and I am sure that we would both agree that it is not really science.


----------



## Afterthought

It seems to me we are going to begin to argue in circles, since it seems neither of us has a strong enough grasp on hermeneutics to see with precision enough to persuade one or the other. I would greatly appreciate it if someone with such a grasp would help sort these things out (Big thank you to Rev. Winzer for dropping in here and there!). Before I attempt my reply, I will note two things concerning the nature of science that occurred to me recently, and which will help clarify what this thread is talking about.

The first is that our senses always work even during miracles. That is, what we sense is what is there. When Moses saw the burning bush, he really did see a bush on fire that was not being consumed. The nature of the fire had changed, but Moses was able to detect that changed nature. The senses still worked during the miracle. And further, all the laws of reason remained unchanged; the bush was burning: it was not both burning and not-burning at the same time.

The second is that even sensing ordinary things reveals a limited perspective. We sense some data and we sense them again and expect to sense it again and so postulate a law governing the data. When a miracle occurs, the ordinary habit of sensation is disrupted. This is where the contradiction lies between the data of sense experience and the data of Scripture. According to sense data, this habit should not have been broken. According to sense data, fire consumes bushes. But the same senses detect the flaming bush is not being consumed. Contradiction! For miracles anyway. For ordinary things, our senses again detect a habit of data. And we do what we can to make sense of that data. But we know according to Scripture that this "habit" is only as lasting as God chooses to govern in that manner; and we know that God will have another perspective on the data and so will most probably "organize" and "explain" those habits differently, even contrary to how we explain them. So for ordinary things, the senses again reveal a limited perspective. And it is only when we recognize that they reveal a limited perspective and so we impose limitations on them that the contradictions disappear. (I hope this last part makes sense!)

But that is for the senses. In history, if something happened, then that something happened from any perspective. Both from Moses' and God's perspective, the bush was not consumed.

So basically, it seems we need to clarify the term "science." I had initially started by making it as general as possible. It seems that cannot be done. The term "science" must be narrowed down--as Rev. Winzer suggested a few posts ago--to sciences based on empirical observation. That still is quite broad, but it helps clarify things and narrow things down to a manageable size, I think. "Reason" is a bit trickier, but there are clearly times when it is based on empirical observation or some other self-imposed, limited perspective (e.g., some axiomatic system) and when it is dealing with necessary truths or truths based purely on reason; so it seems best to clarify "science" to those ones based purely on sensory perception.



Loopie said:


> I think that we simply have a different understanding of science. To me, science is just as simple as sticking your hand into a fire and recognizing that you get burned every time. It is observing that similar causes have similar effects, and that there is a uniformity of nature. It is observing that when you drop two objects from the same height, they will arrive at the ground at the exact same time (barring effects of the wind). And so, I honestly do believe that 'science' can lead us to think critically about our hermeneutical principles. This is because hermeneutical principles do not just come from Scripture, they also come from general rules of logic. For instance, it is proper to read Scripture within its historical context. But one does not have to read Scripture in order to figure out that it is always good to read things within their historical context. Reading something within the proper historical context (who the author is, who the audience is, etc.) is applicable in studying all literature. With that being said, I certainly believe that if someone has a very skewed hermeneutic, 'scientific' discoveries can lead them to think critically about how they used to read Scripture.


And so you agree that the hermeneutical principles are derived on unchanging grounds. You are probably right; I would say that is certainly a part of science, but that's not the whole of it, since an explanation must be given for those observations; I had already agreed that what we directly observe with our senses is allowed in interpreting Scripture where the Scriptures touch on their domain, so long as we recognize the limitations of the senses (e.g., neither of us would suggest that the info from our senses that a hand must get burned when put in the fire is so absolute that we would deny the miracle in Daniel, nor that our senses say the world operates according to immutable laws would cause us to deny that God is the one governing when we read it in the Scriptures or derive it from reason).



Loopie said:


> I am not so prideful as to think that my personal interpretation of Scripture trumps what is revealed in science. Again, I am not at all suggesting that science actually trumps Scripture. Rather, simple observation of God's creation should lead us to highlight and address any of our own presuppositions. Ultimately, I would certainly agree with you that we are not to 'level' the authority between Scripture and science. Scripture is always of the highest authority, but just because Scripture itself is of the highest authority does not mean that I am doing a good job understanding and interpreting it. I always must watch out for any unwarranted presuppositions that I bring to the table when I read God's word. Observing God's creation can help me to become aware of my own presuppositions.


It is precisely this point "just because Scripture itself is of the highest authority does not mean that I am doing a good job understanding and interpreting it" that I see as leveling the authority between Scripture and science. I know people will say that they aren't doing that, and that it is really their interpretation that they are putting on equal ground, but that is what I mean by leveling the authority between the two. Along with the things I have already mentioned about the two sorts of interpretations themselves not being on equal ground, it seems to me that this sort of disjunction between one's interpretation of Scripture and what Scripture says leaves one with what the Scriptures say as merely an ideal, while our interpretations are the things that do the work. Since we can only access what the Scriptures say through interpretation, that tends to level the authority of the Scriptures too, by putting the authoritative reach of Scripture uncertainly outside our grasp.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> It seems to me we are going to begin to argue in circles, since it seems neither of us has a strong enough grasp on hermeneutics to see with precision enough to persuade one or the other. I would greatly appreciate it if someone with such a grasp would help sort these things out (Big thank you to Rev. Winzer for dropping in here and there!). Before I attempt my reply, I will note two things concerning the nature of science that occurred to me recently, and which will help clarify what this thread is talking about.
> 
> The first is that our senses always work even during miracles. That is, what we sense is what is there. When Moses saw the burning bush, he really did see a bush on fire that was not being consumed. The nature of the fire had changed, but Moses was able to detect that changed nature. The senses still worked during the miracle. And further, all the laws of reason remained unchanged; the bush was burning: it was not both burning and not-burning at the same time.
> 
> The second is that even sensing ordinary things reveals a limited perspective. We sense some data and we sense them again and expect to sense it again and so postulate a law governing the data. When a miracle occurs, the ordinary habit of sensation is disrupted. This is where the contradiction lies between the data of sense experience and the data of Scripture. According to sense data, this habit should not have been broken. According to sense data, fire consumes bushes. But the same senses detect the flaming bush is not being consumed. Contradiction! For miracles anyway. For ordinary things, our senses again detect a habit of data. And we do what we can to make sense of that data. But we know according to Scripture that this "habit" is only as lasting as God chooses to govern in that manner; and we know that God will have another perspective on the data and so will most probably "organize" and "explain" those habits differently, even contrary to how we explain them. So for ordinary things, the senses again reveal a limited perspective. And it is only when we recognize that they reveal a limited perspective and so we impose limitations on them that the contradictions disappear. (I hope this last part makes sense!)
> 
> But that is for the senses. In history, if something happened, then that something happened from any perspective. Both from Moses' and God's perspective, the bush was not consumed.



I completely follow and agree with what you said concerning the senses.



Afterthought said:


> So basically, it seems we need to clarify the term "science." I had initially started by making it as general as possible. It seems that cannot be done. The term "science" must be narrowed down--as Rev. Winzer suggested a few posts ago--to sciences based on empirical observation. That still is quite broad, but it helps clarify things and narrow things down to a manageable size, I think. "Reason" is a bit trickier, but there are clearly times when it is based on empirical observation or some other self-imposed, limited perspective (e.g., some axiomatic system) and when it is dealing with necessary truths or truths based purely on reason; so it seems best to clarify "science" to those ones based purely on sensory perception.



You are absolutely right.



Afterthought said:


> And so you agree that the hermeneutical principles are derived on unchanging grounds. You are probably right; I would say that is certainly a part of science, but that's not the whole of it, since an explanation must be given for those observations; I had already agreed that what we directly observe with our senses is allowed in interpreting Scripture where the Scriptures touch on their domain, so long as we recognize the limitations of the senses (e.g., neither of us would suggest that the info from our senses that a hand must get burned when put in the fire is so absolute that we would deny the miracle in Daniel, nor that our senses say the world operates according to immutable laws would cause us to deny that God is the one governing when we read it in the Scriptures or derive it from reason).



Absolutely right. I completely agree that we must recognize the limitations of the senses.



Afterthought said:


> It is precisely this point "just because Scripture itself is of the highest authority does not mean that I am doing a good job understanding and interpreting it" that I see as leveling the authority between Scripture and science. I know people will say that they aren't doing that, and that it is really their interpretation that they are putting on equal ground, but that is what I mean by leveling the authority between the two. Along with the things I have already mentioned about the two sorts of interpretations themselves not being on equal ground, it seems to me that this sort of disjunction between one's interpretation of Scripture and what Scripture says leaves one with what the Scriptures say as merely an ideal, while our interpretations are the things that do the work. Since we can only access what the Scriptures say through interpretation, that tends to level the authority of the Scriptures too, by putting the authoritative reach of Scripture uncertainly outside our grasp.



This is certainly where we disagree the most. I respectfully disagree with you when you say that being critical of my own interpretation is the same thing as leveling the authority between Scripture and science. It is simply not the case that my interpretation of Scripture is always perfect. But just because I allow for God's creation to help me think critically about my own assumptions that I bring to the table does not mean that Scripture itself is being tossed out the window, or trampled under the foot of 'science'. There is certainly a sense in which we strive to perfectly understand the Scriptures in its entirety. Is there anyone alive today that can say they can perfectly exegete all of Scripture, and have perfectly understood and interpreted every single verse? Part of growing in the Christian walk is also becoming more and more familiar with God's word, growing in the knowledge of the Scriptures. Now, I would argue that the core doctrines of Christianity are very clearly laid out in Scripture, whereas some other things (such as more specific details regarding the millennium in Revelation) are less clear. But there is nothing wrong with this at all. If I change my views on the millennium, does that mean that Scripture is flawed, or that God's word is not sufficient? By no means. What it does mean is that I am still growing in my understanding and knowledge of God's word. I as a human am flawed, and we cannot avoid the fact that Scripture is being read and interpreted by flawed humans. Yet we can be grateful that the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. Anyways, perhaps you and I are at an impasse, which is absolutely fine. We both agree that Scripture is the final authority, but it seems we disagree on the relationship between what Scripture actually says, and what a person reading it 'thinks' that it says.


----------



## Afterthought

Maybe I'll respond later. Just posting a quotation of historical interest from Patrick Fairbairn's _Hermeneutical manual_ that I happened across while doing something else (though given the deficiencies in my understanding of hermeneutics that I have displayed in this thread, perhaps it wouldn't hurt me to give it a good read some time). Concerning Augustine's comments on Matthew 10:16 that was posted...

"Augustine remarks, by way of explanation, "It is known respecting the serpent, that it presents to those striking it, instead of the head, the whole body; and this shows, in connexion with our Lord's word, that we should offer to those persecuting us our body, rather than our head, which is Christ, lest the Christian faith should be, as it were, slain in us, if by sparing our body we should disown God." "Or, again"--taking another view of the matter--"since it is known, that the serpent, when compressed by the straitness of its den, casts off its old skin, and thereby, it is said receives new strength, it admonishes us to imitate that same cunning of the serpent, and put off the old man, as the apostle says, that we may put on the new, and put it off through straits, entering (as the Lord says) through the strait gate."

I need scarcely say, that these points in the natural history of the serpent (if they were real) would serve little to illustrate our Lord's maxim, in the connexion, in which it is introduced; since, plainly, the wisdom He recommends, and finds imaged in the serpent, is wisdom, not to enter into a Christian state, nor to brave persecution and death, when entered, rather than betray the cause of Christ, but to guide one's self discreetly and prudently in the midst of danger, so as, if possible, to escape the evil threatened by it.

Indeed, there is scarcely any thing known in the natural history of the serpent-brood, which can be of service in illustrating the comparison; for in their exisiting condition serpents are not remarkable for wisdom, in the respect now mentioned, and possess lower instincts and sagacity than many other irrational creatures. Yet there can be no doubt, that in ancient times the serpent was very commonly taken as a symbol of wisdom, was even extensively worshipped as having something Divine about it. But this most probably sprung out of the tradition respecting its primeval state, as the wisest among the beasts of the field, and the part it was in consequence employed by the arch-deceiver to play in the fall of man. Scripturally, and traditionally, the serpent was peculiarly associated with the attribute of wisdom--and it is best to regard our Lord as simply founding on this historical belief, and the deeply significant facts connected with it." (Near the end of the 8th section of the 1st part)


One of the theses on this page (being mindful of the different vocabulary developed in and the different question raised by this thread) states that "Study of general revelation must inform but not control our interpretation of Scripture." That may be helpful later.


----------



## Afterthought

Just another observation concerning the difference between interpretation of Scripture and re-interpreting Scripture by science. It seems there needs to be a distinction between facts in the text and theories related to facts in the text. I think I raised this earlier on in the thread, but to elaborate on it a bit more now, it seems an interpretation of Scripture is based on facts in the text. The second level--theories related to facts--is the realm in which scientific theories may create a problem by posing as an interpretation of Scripture rather than a theory related to an interpretation of Scripture.

So for example, the teaching of Scripture on Creation gives certain facts and these facts are then interpreted. However, there are scientific theories related to these facts--such as how the stars administrate light or how the various creatures operate--that are not strictly facts in the text. Not being facts in the text, it would seem these scientific theories cannot be considered interpretations of Scripture or to enhance our understanding of Scripture per se. These scientific theories then become problematic when they pose themselves as interpretations of the text, e.g., we know how stars create light, therefore, the stars create light of themselves so we must understand the "light" created at the beginning as something different than the light given by the stars or we must understand God to have created stars or some other light source (like the Big Bang) to create that light. Hence, the Scripture is re-interpreted.

So it seems that when a theory related to facts of the text is used to interpret a text, it is a re-interpreting of Scripture by science rather than an interpretation of Scripture itself.

A more complicated example occurs with geocentrism, and that example shows that theological theories can conflict with scientific ones. Namely, the facts in the text in Joshua show that the sun moves, and we must interpret the Scripture accordingly. Heliocentrism is a scientific theory related to the fact in the text and is used to interpret that part of Scripture that it must have been the earth that really stopped rotating. When this scientific theory is used in that manner, it creates a problem not so much with the facts in the text (as is always the case in scientific "re-interpretation", as the earlier example showed) but rather with a theological "theory." The theological "theory" is really just an understanding of how miracles function, and that understanding is used to show that the facts in the text are not merely apparent but real. It is this theological understanding and interpretation of the text that conflicts with the scientific theory related to the facts in the text. From here then, it would seem that one needs to decide whether to hold one's theological understanding over one's scientific understanding. And given the problem of the immutability of species, it doesn't seem obvious which one should give, though one would have thought that theology--a supernatural queen of sciences--should take precedence over other sciences.

I suppose other features of biblical cosmology also create some serious problems with scientific theories related to them.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> A more complicated example occurs with geocentrism, and that example shows that theological theories can conflict with scientific ones. Namely, the facts in the text in Joshua show that the sun moves, and we must interpret the Scripture accordingly. Heliocentrism is a scientific theory related to the fact in the text and is used to interpret that part of Scripture that it must have been the earth that really stopped rotating. When this scientific theory is used in that manner, it creates a problem not so much with the facts in the text (as is always the case in scientific "re-interpretation", as the earlier example showed) but rather with a theological "theory." The theological "theory" is really just an understanding of how miracles function, and that understanding is used to show that the facts in the text are not merely apparent but real. It is this theological understanding and interpretation of the text that conflicts with the scientific theory related to the facts in the text. From here then, it would seem that one needs to decide whether to hold one's theological understanding over one's scientific understanding. And given the problem of the immutability of species, it doesn't seem obvious which one should give, though one would have thought that theology--a supernatural queen of sciences--should take precedence over other sciences.
> 
> I suppose other features of biblical cosmology also create some serious problems with scientific theories related to them.



It is also important to keep in mind that the author of the text is writing from a human perspective. From the viewpoint of mankind, it always appears as if the sun is moving in the sky. Even our modern weather channels still refer to 'sunrise' and 'sunset'. So simply because the sun stopped moving in the sky (from a human eye perspective) does not mean that the sun necessarily revolves around the earth. The apparent movement of the sun described in the Bible is not speaking of the astronomical orbits that God has put into place. It is simply speaking to what man sees happening. It is only when people go too far with Scripture, and start assuming that it is speaking of astronomical laws, that we end up getting ourselves into a predicament. How often do we as Christians speculate beyond what Scripture calls for? Certainly the Roman Catholic Church has done an excellent job of speculating beyond the text. I would simply argue that those Christians who defended the theory of geocentrism were simply taking the Scriptures beyond what they were saying. They might not have realized what they were doing, and they might have had good intentions about doing it. But regardless, there was nothing within the text of Scripture that mandated a geocentric view of our solar system. That is why we must always take care to consider what exactly Scripture is trying to communicate, and whether or not we are warranted in any speculation beyond the text.


----------



## Eoghan

*the immutability of species*



Afterthought said:


> For another, the immutability of species was believed in for a long time, on theological grounds (I think Thomas Aquinas first argued this?). However, once Darwin came along, immutability of species was no longer seen as true, and so the understanding of theology changed accordingly. F



This assumes an equivalent meaning between the biblical 'kind' and the taxonomic unit 'species'. This is not only unwarranted but dangerous. Linnaeus himself was of the opinion that the genus (next taxonomic unit up) was closer to the equivalent of a species. Aside from man we know of the crow and dove as "kinds" (Noah's Ark). Both have diversified into 'species' and sub-species. So clearly a species does not equate with the kind in this instance.


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> The apparent movement of the sun described in the Bible is not speaking of the astronomical orbits that God has put into place. It is simply speaking to what man sees happening. It is only when people go too far with Scripture, and start assuming that it is speaking of astronomical laws, that we end up getting ourselves into a predicament.



It is unhelpful to pretend that an interpretative framework has not been imposed upon Scripture when one chooses to say that Scripture is "simply speaking" according to what man sees. One must have some reason for restricting Scripture to the phenomenological realm in this particular case, especially when Scripture is not restricted in a broad range of other areas.


----------



## Loopie

armourbearer said:


> It is unhelpful to pretend that an interpretative framework has not been imposed upon Scripture when one chooses to say that Scripture is "simply speaking" according to what man sees. One must have some reason for restricting Scripture to the phenomenological realm in this particular case, especially when Scripture is not restricted in a broad range of other areas.



I certainly did not intend to be unhelpful in what I said, and for that I apologize. I just think that our interpretive framework ought to be determined by Scripture. What I mean is, when it is said that the Sun stood still, it certainly did look as if it were not moving in the sky. That does not necessarily speak to whether or not the Sun actually revolves around the earth, for it does not seem like that passage is trying to present an astronomical treatise concerning how God created the universe:

Joshua 10:12-15 (NASB) 
12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." 
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 
14 There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel. 
15 Then Joshua and all Israel with him returned to the camp to Gilgal. 

Again, I could be wrong, but I believe it is good principle not to speculate beyond what Scripture is actually telling us, unless there is some warrant for doing so.


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> Again, I could be wrong, but I believe it is good principle not to speculate beyond what Scripture is actually telling us, unless there is some warrant for doing so.



The problem here is that a claim for neutrality in interpretation is being made when in fact a positive abstraction is being drawn from the Scripture, namely, that the language is to be confined to the phenomenological level. It would be far more helpful if the interpretative framework which leads to this conclusion were brought out into the light so that it could be tested in terms of its assumptions and aims.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> It is only when people go too far with Scripture, and start assuming that it is speaking of astronomical laws, that we end up getting ourselves into a predicament.


"Astronomical laws" would need to be clarified. Besides what has already been mentioned that a phenomenological perspective would need to be proved rather than assumed as a default view, it is certainly possible for one to say something that refers to some area of overlap with science that nevertheless wouldn't qualify as a law nor be a fully thought out system. In this particular case, merely saying that the sun is moving or the earth is rotating doesn't really qualify as an astronomical law, in my opinion. But I think I know what you're talking about anyway. It may be better in this particular instance to question whether the motion _as described_ was real or phenomenal, more absolute (since a question of motion is relative to _something_) or relative to the perspective of observation only.... But I guess that's what Rev. Winzer has said already concerning bringing our interpretive frameworks out in the open.



Loopie said:


> But regardless, there was nothing within the text of Scripture that mandated a geocentric view of our solar system.


Since "solar system" is a scientific system, it probably would be going beyond the text, especially in consideration of what I proposed above. But my guess is that a geocentric view of this passage would simply (i.e., without bringing in some scientific system or body of laws) maintain that the sun stood still, ordinarily moves such that when it stands still the day is prolonged, and that the sun standing still was a real motion not merely phenomenal motion relative to the observers. I wonder though if inferring from this passage that the sun ordinarily and really moves requires an understanding of how miracles function, not merely what the text says (though I suppose it is a fair inference that if something stopped moving it ordinarily moved before it stopped).



Eoghan said:


> This assumes an equivalent meaning between the biblical 'kind' and the taxonomic unit 'species'. This is not only unwarranted but dangerous. Linnaeus himself was of the opinion that the genus (next taxonomic unit up) was closer to the equivalent of a species. Aside from man we know of the crow and dove as "kinds" (Noah's Ark). Both have diversified into 'species' and sub-species. So clearly a species does not equate with the kind in this instance.


Well, you seem to know much more about the subject than I! So to re-state my intention in bringing it up (to make sure I'm understanding you correctly), the main point was that the theological deduction was viewed as inaccurate only after science had its say, which seemed to me to be an interpreting of theology by science. From what I gather in your reply, it would seem that this theological deduction was actually one of those odd blends of science and Scripture (since to apply it, one would need a scientific understanding of "species") that didn't work out too well? If so, that would solve this seeming counterexample to the pre-eminence of theology. But I'm not sure that a scientific understanding of "species" is necessary for one to have believed in the immutability of species? Was a scientific understanding of "species" needed or used by maintainers of the immutability of species, historically?




Loopie said:


> We both agree that Scripture is the final authority, but it seems we disagree on the relationship between what Scripture actually says, and what a person reading it 'thinks' that it says.


It's been a while, but I think would have to agree that one cannot pose such a conjunction between what a person thinks the Scriptures say and what they actually say, or else, as you noted, we could never be wrong in our understanding of it. My only problem was posing such a disjunction between the two that I think I see being used in the arguments concerning the various areas of conflict between Scripture in science. I'm not able to provide a precise understanding of what is too large a disjunction though, so there is a possibility that such a disjunction isn't the real problem that seems to cause a leveling of authority between Scripture and science but something else (perhaps not distinguishing properly between interpreting/understanding Scripture and interpreting/understanding facts related to Scripture, if that is indeed a fair distinction).


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> "Astronomical laws" would need to be clarified. Besides what has already been mentioned that a phenomenological perspective would need to be proved rather than assumed as a default view, it is certainly possible for one to say something that refers to some area of overlap with science that nevertheless wouldn't qualify as a law nor be a fully thought out system. In this particular case, merely saying that the sun is moving or the earth is rotating doesn't really qualify as an astronomical law, in my opinion. But I think I know what you're talking about anyway. It may be better in this particular instance to question whether the motion _as described_ was real or phenomenal, more absolute (since a question of motion is relative to _something_) or relative to the perspective of observation only.... But I guess that's what Rev. Winzer has said already concerning bringing our interpretive frameworks out in the open.



You are absolutely right, and I would never say that what appeared to be the sun standing still in the sky was to be confined to merely the phenomenological level. The sun certainly stopped moving, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of the solar system is that the earth stopped rotating. But the only way that someone would ever be able to 'see' the earth stop moving is if they no longer were on the earth, but were watching the earth from an external point of view, such as the moon. So long as a person is standing on the earth, it will always be apparent that the sun is moving, even though in reality it is they themselves that move.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> So long as a person is standing on the earth, it will always be apparent that the sun is moving, even though in reality it is they themselves that move.


Rev. Winzer can clarify for himself, but I think this is what is meant by confining the motion to a phenomenological level only. But anyway, at least now you are arguing why you would see the language as describing things from an observational point of view only. (And I certainly appreciate the use of "our current understanding" in connection with science)

It still seems to me though that you may be interpreting the text by our science (edit: Or maybe not. You may just be presenting an interpretation of facts related to Scripture and then showing how this interpretation is consistent with what occurred in the text.)? Perhaps you may have identified another area where science is allowed to interpret the text, namely, when one can prove the text is speaking from an observational view only? If not though, I wonder how "The sun certainly stopped moving, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of the solar system is that the earth stopped rotating." would play out with other miracles in the Bible (I wonder this as a general heremeneutical question, in keeping with the main subject of this thread, rather than the hermeneutics of interpreting that passage in Joshua specifically).

Granted, those other miracles are different from this one in that the ordinary in this case conflicts with our modern science while only the extraordinary conflicts in the other miracles, but they share the common characteristic that they might be explained by science such that those who saw the miracle only apparently saw it rather than the miracle being real as well as apparent (i.e., that what was apparent corresponded to what was real). Perhaps one could say, "What occurred in this miracle certainly happened, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of science, something else really happened and what was seen in the miracle was only apparent"?

As with many of my questions in threads, I ask the above to anyone, not just the one I'm addressing in the post.


----------



## Afterthought

@Eoghan: Any comments on my questions to you in Post 54?

@Matthew Winzer: I'd love to hear your thoughts on Post 42, if you have the time; appearances of events is one of the stronger reasons people give for allowing interpreting Scripture by our current knowledge of science. Though of course, I'd also love to hear them on any of the questions raised in this thread concerning the allowing of science to interpret Scripture (though that goes for anyone who has a firm grasp of these matters).


Really, a lot of this thread is largely just me thinking out loud and bouncing those ideas off people. I'm not entirely certain about many of the things I have said in this thread, and I may have taken things too far, since these ideas (especially those related to Post 42) may make the cosmological and design arguments illegitimate as well as making it illegitimate to posit special creation as a scientific hypothesis in counter to evolution (which would mean we would be obligated from a scientific view to hold to evolution, since whatever its weaknesses, it would be all there is, scientifically).


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> Rev. Winzer can clarify for himself, but I think this is what is meant by confining the motion to a phenomenological level only. But anyway, at least now you are arguing why you would see the language as describing things from an observational point of view only. (And I certainly appreciate the use of "our current understanding" in connection with science)
> 
> It still seems to me though that you may be interpreting the text by our science (edit: Or maybe not. You may just be presenting an interpretation of facts related to Scripture and then showing how this interpretation is consistent with what occurred in the text.)? Perhaps you may have identified another area where science is allowed to interpret the text, namely, when one can prove the text is speaking from an observational view only? If not though, I wonder how "The sun certainly stopped moving, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of the solar system is that the earth stopped rotating." would play out with other miracles in the Bible (I wonder this as a general heremeneutical question, in keeping with the main subject of this thread, rather than the hermeneutics of interpreting that passage in Joshua specifically).
> 
> Granted, those other miracles are different from this one in that the ordinary in this case conflicts with our modern science while only the extraordinary conflicts in the other miracles, but they share the common characteristic that they might be explained by science such that those who saw the miracle only apparently saw it rather than the miracle being real as well as apparent (i.e., that what was apparent corresponded to what was real). Perhaps one could say, "What occurred in this miracle certainly happened, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of science, something else really happened and what was seen in the miracle was only apparent"?
> 
> As with many of my questions in threads, I ask the above to anyone, not just the one I'm addressing in the post.



I am very much enjoying this discussion, and I think it is good that we try to understand the point of view (no pun intended) that each of us is holding. As for a phenomenological level of motion, if by this you mean that the sun only appeared to stop moving, while the earth itself REALLY stopped moving, then I suppose I do hold to this view. You see, I do not think that arguing for the phenomenological viewpoint takes away from God's glory. Preventing the earth from rotating is just as much a miracle as 'stopping the sun from moving'. And besides, I really do not see how the sun can stop from moving if it was never moving around the earth in the first place. 

Believe me, I am fully aware of the arguments put forth by those who wish to 'naturalize' all of the miracles in the Bible. They argue that Jesus was just walking on a sand bank, not actually walking on water. That is not my position at all. I do not believe that Joshua was hallucinating when he saw the sun stop moving in the sky. I believe the earth stopped rotating by the power of God. 

Ultimately, I am never letting my own observations of the world trump Scripture. We go to the Scriptures first, and then ask ourselves the following question: "In light of what Scripture has just said, what should I EXPECT to see in the world around me?" God does not contradict himself, and so if he has said something in Scripture, the truth of that statement is going to leave evidence in history and in the world. 

So when we read God's word, we then should look up from the words and look at the world around us. If we see something that appears to be in conflict, or appears to be a contradiction, there are two questions we must ask ourselves: "Did I just misunderstand the Bible just now, by bringing in some wrong presuppositions?" and "Am I jumping to too many conclusions regarding the world around me without letting Scripture speak first?" These are the questions we must ask ourselves, and to assume that every time we read a passage of Scripture, that we have read it perfectly and without error on our part, is a bad assumption to make. Science never trumps Scripture. But if the same God who created the universe gave us his word, the two of them SHOULD line up perfectly. There SHOULD be perfect continuity. The only issue is our own fallible and limited understanding, by which we bring in false presuppositions, or ignore certain aspects of Scripture that should be not ignored.


----------



## Afterthought

Bumping for Mr. Winzer and Eoghan.



Loopie said:


> Believe me, I am fully aware of the arguments put forth by those who wish to 'naturalize' all of the miracles in the Bible. They argue that Jesus was just walking on a sand bank, not actually walking on water. That is not my position at all. I do not believe that Joshua was hallucinating when he saw the sun stop moving in the sky. I believe the earth stopped rotating by the power of God.


Thank you for clarifying. Yes, that is what I understood the term "phenomenal" to refer to. But from this paragraph quoted, I don't know if you understood the question I was asking? Or perhaps you did response in the paragraphs that follow and I'm not understanding your response?

To clarify what I was asking, it was a question of a hermeneutical nature. What causes you in this instance to let science into your interpretation of the passage while leaving it out elsewhere? Could not someone just say, they do not believe the disciples were hallucinating when they saw Jesus walk on water, but Jesus really did a miracle by causing a sand bank to rise or rocks or caused the water to freeze over wherever his feet were or whatever so that he could walk on it?

Or to use another example of some things that actually are said, could not someone say that when the light bearers were "created" on day 4, they really do believe that these objects became visible to a person on earth on day 4 because they really do believe God removed the dust cloud that would have obstructed them? Or that when God created light, that they really do believe God created stars and galaxies and other light bearers on day 1? Or that it is clear we see exploding stars and distant objects, so the miracle of Creation must have actually taken a long time, perhaps the days were only ordinary days with respect to an observer on earth, or perhaps they were only ordinary days with respect to the original audience, the days actually being long periods of time or some sort of figurative structure?

So to ask again: What do you use to determine when empirical science may be let into your interpretation? Why let it in for the events described in one case and not in others? (And as a scientific aside, I'm not sure that the earth ceasing to rotate is sufficient to account for the miracle even on heliocentric or a-centric grounds.)



Loopie said:


> Ultimately, I am never letting my own observations of the world trump Scripture. We go to the Scriptures first, and then ask ourselves the following question: "In light of what Scripture has just said, what should I EXPECT to see in the world around me?" God does not contradict himself, and so if he has said something in Scripture, the truth of that statement is going to leave evidence in history and in the world.
> 
> So when we read God's word, we then should look up from the words and look at the world around us. If we see something that appears to be in conflict, or appears to be a contradiction, there are two questions we must ask ourselves: "Did I just misunderstand the Bible just now, by bringing in some wrong presuppositions?" and "Am I jumping to too many conclusions regarding the world around me without letting Scripture speak first?" These are the questions we must ask ourselves, and to assume that every time we read a passage of Scripture, that we have read it perfectly and without error on our part, is a bad assumption to make. Science never trumps Scripture. But if the same God who created the universe gave us his word, the two of them SHOULD line up perfectly. There SHOULD be perfect continuity. The only issue is our own fallible and limited understanding, by which we bring in false presuppositions, or ignore certain aspects of Scripture that should be not ignored.


Well, I don't know if I want to tread this ground again, since I have nothing new to add in arguing that science and Scripture contradict each other in what facts they give, and so, especially with miracles (and especially with Creation), there is no reason to believe that the truth of a particular statement will leave evidence in extra-Biblical history and in the world. However, to clarify what I mean by "science trumping Scripture" I mean that in any particular case in which the Bible says X and science says ~X, it is determined that ~X is the actual truth of the matter. From there, on your view (since other views would conclude something different from those facts), it seems to me you would say that the Bible also actually says ~X too and that we had simply been misunderstanding it until now.




In contrast, I think the way to characterize the view I am presenting and which Rev. Winzer had mentioned would be: that in a particular case in which the Bible says X and science says ~X, both may be true within their epistemic domains; the Bible's domain being absolute reality. Hence, there is no reason to conclude from the bare fact that one says X and one says ~X that either our interpretation of Scripture is wrong or our science must be modified. Whether such a position can hold consistency and answer objections properly without denying our rationality and how it differs from Islam's view of things and whether it necessarily precludes using science (and if it doesn't, to what degree it allows science in our interpretation) in our interpretation of Scripture, I do not know for sure (on the Islam part, that is largely due to my ignorance of their view in fine enough detail); such things are intimately tied to the several questions I have asked in this thread on hermeneutical method.

I'll probably create a post soon that collates the various things in this thread in a simple manner and asks simple and short questions of them.


----------



## MW

Science tells us it would have taken natural processes billions of years to produce what we see around us. By my reckoning it would have taken much, much longer, even an infinity; which is as much as to say, Never. Notwithstanding, taking the "science" as it is presented, I marvel at the revelation that God created it all in six days. Without some idea of the "ordinary," the wonder of the "extraordinary" will be lost on us.

The sun stood still. Everyone agrees that is what the text says. On another level one might engage in the process of abstraction and try to work out what that means within a Copernican framework; but it should be acknowledged this is an abstraction, not an interpretation. The idea that the book of Joshua means something other than what it says, and that this esoteric meaning anticipated the Copernican revolution, is just plain silly. The Bible deserves more respect than that.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> The sun stood still. Everyone agrees that is what the text says. On another level one might engage in the process of abstraction and try to work out what that means within a Copernican framework; but it should be acknowledged this is an abstraction, not an interpretation.


Is it a level of abstraction to understand that the sun stood still really and not merely relative to the perspective of observers on earth? Why/Why not? It would also seem that this "abstraction" you speak of is not an interpretation of the text and so no science would be allowed into the interpretation of the text; would it be fair to characterize such an abstraction as an interpretation of facts relative to the text or a seeing of whether our modern science can be consistent with the text?



armourbearer said:


> Science tells us it would have taken natural processes billions of years to produce what we see around us.


This is true, but I don't know if it solves appearances of events, since in that case it isn't a matter of how much time it takes to produce things but events that apparently didn't happen unless there was all that time, though I did try to give a solution along these lines in a post I linked to in post 57.


----------



## MW

"Sun, stand thou still." "And the sun stood still." Please interpret those words without abstracting any information for the purposes of cosmology. What stood still, according to the text? The subject is being brought into needless confusion by jumping to an issue which the text did not intend to address.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> "Sun, stand thou still." "And the sun stood still." Please interpret those words without abstracting any information for the purposes of cosmology. What stood still, according to the text? The subject is being brought into needless confusion by jumping to an issue which the text did not intend to address.


Well, if one ignores cosmology or relative motion or observed motion, etc., one would have to say the sun stood still. But also (not that I find this problematic), if one is not to extract cosmological information, it would seem this text supports neither geo-, helio-, a-, or whatever centric cosmology, nor any cosmology at all; not even allowing one to say whether the sun stood still more absolutely or relative to the observers only.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Well, if one ignores cosmology or relative motion or observed motion, etc., one would have to say the sun stood still. But also, if one is not to extract cosmological information, it would seem this text supports neither geo-, helio-, a-, or whatever centric cosmology, nor any cosmology at all.



At least we now know what the Bible itself intended to teach. This is a basic first step. Now when someone tells us the Bible teaches the sun only "seemed" to stand still we will be in a position to evaluate their claims.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> At least we now know what the Bible itself intended to teach. This is a basic first step. Now when someone tells us the Bible teaches the sun only "seemed" to stand still we will be in a position to evaluate their claims.


I guess this next question then is somewhat deviating from the topic of the thread (since it seems you would not allow any of our science or philosophy into our interpretation of the text), but: Where do we go from here? One can say that the Bible teaches that the sun stood still, but given our philosophical understandings of relative and absolute motion, and our empirical scientific understandings of cosmology, how do we understand what the Bible is teaching on this point? Or do we not even bother trying to understand our extra-biblical knowledge in light of what the Bible teaches, because to do such would be to understand the Bible to teach something different, or would merely make an abstraction that has no bearing on the interpretation of the text? Or do we simply count any extra-biblical theory that would only allow for the sun to seem to stand still (edit: I had written "apparent motion" but that is an extra-Biblical philosophical concept) in this miracle to be at worst false and at best incomplete? I guess I'm just wondering what this teaching means for other areas, if anything.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Or do we simply count any extra-biblical theory that would only allow for the sun to seem to stand still (edit: I had written "apparent motion" but that is an extra-Biblical philosophical concept) in this miracle to be at worst false and at best incomplete?



I know I am only repeating myself, but the value lies in its temporality; and as a temporally useful model it will last as long as it is useful and then it will be laid aside for something else which is deemed of more use. I can read Puritan biographies and smile at their blood-letting, the swallowing of gold bullets, and what not, but these people took them seriously because they sought to be faithful according to the light they received. That is the best we can do. Future generations will smile at us. The error lies in trying to be something more than we are or in trying to make the Bible say something more than it does.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> I know I am only repeating myself, but the value lies in its temporality; and as a temporally useful model it will last as long as it is useful and then it will be laid aside for something else which is deemed of more use. I can read Puritan biographies and smile at their blood-letting, the swallowing of gold bullets, and what not, but these people took them seriously because they sought to be faithful according to the light they received. That is the best we can do. Future generations will smile at us. The error lies in trying to be something more than we are or in trying to make the Bible say something more than it does.


Yes, you are, but I guess I need the repetition until I understand; thank you. I don't know why I find these sorts of topics difficult to understand; I'm sure it is quite simple. It isn't the exegesis of these texts that bother me; I think I'm fairly convinced that if we used old-fashioned Protestant principles of interpretation, we would yield six ordinary day Creation ("24 hours" is cosmological information) and that the Bible teaches the sun stood still during that particular event. Nor do I have difficulty finding value in our sciences--even if it was only a pragmatic value--if it had no relation to what the Bible teaches, or even if it had no relation to reality at all. I think it is how our principles of interpretation relate to extra-Biblical facts and how our Biblical interpretations relate to extra-Biblical facts, and especially scientific facts that give me difficulty (though I also have difficulty understanding the use of historical background in interpretations); for if we are allowed to use our sciences in interpreting these texts--Creation science notwithstanding--I don't see how six day Creation or the sun really standing still could hold water, though the latter could be understood to an extent with our current science.

Why are we not allowed to use our empirical (since it seems other tools like history and our senses are allowed in interpretation?) scientific knowledge in interpretation in general? And if we are not allowed to use our sciences in interpreting these or other like texts, then what relation do these texts have to our world (e.g., if we can only say that the sun stood still and can't say whether it stood still absolutely or relatively, there is nothing to relate it to in our world, since in our world, all matters of "standing still" [I would say "motion" but I don't know if that is allowed to be said?] must be qualified to be understood.)?

Perhaps I need to take a break and think about it some more then come back... I can only imagine the ways future generations may smile at us!  I appreciate your "humanizing" those who have gone before us by reminding us that, well, we're humans too!


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Why are we not allowed to use our empirical (since it seems other tools like history and our senses are allowed in interpretation?) scientific knowledge in interpretation in general?



I don't recall saying that we couldn't use empirical methods; only that they are limited. Certainly they are not to be given such a broad range of powers that they can make the Bible say something other than what it says. The key to interpretation is to remember WHAT is being interpreted. We can deconstruct and reconstruct Aesop's Fables to our heart's delight. It doesn't teach us about God, our souls, eternal life, the incarnation and atonement, salvation by grace, etc. The Bible teaches these things and they are not discovered by natural reason. These teachings are at the heart of the Bible, and the heart does not function on its own. There is a whole body in place to support it. A method of interpretation which alters the body is bound to affect the heart of the message. So we should label this box, HANDLE WITH UTMOST CARE!


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> I don't recall saying that we couldn't use empirical methods; only that they are limited.* Certainly they are not to be given such a broad range of powers that they can make the Bible say something other than what it says.*


This may be the unidentifiable thing that bothers me in some interpretations of the Bible which seem to give empirical historical background information too much weight. I wish there was a way of knowing when and to what extent we could use empirical knowledge in Bible interpretation! I know that if I talked to anyone I knew, they would ask why I would or would not allow empirical knowledge into my interpretations in one place or another and to one degree or another. They would also wonder why I, as one being educated in physics, would or would not be interested in using all the knowledge we have--from special revelation, from philosophy, from empirical science--in formulating empirically scientific theories and would ask what relation the Scriptures have to our sciences (e.g., what do you mean by "six ordinary days"? What do you mean by "the sun stood still"? What bearing does this have on our extra-Biblical knowledge?). And my peers in philosophy and science would ask why I would believe such things, given my education, probably attributing my beliefs to cognitive dissonance.

I'm still not sure I could answer those questions, despite this thread's length, but you raise a good point and have given a good warning. Thank you for the help! I know that, if it must come down to it, I'm willing to live with ignorance of how all these things work out (e.g., figuring out the "appearances of events" problem I mentioned above, or whether Creation is a valid scientific alternative to evolution) if I can be confident in knowing what the Scriptures say and in explaining to others why I believe they say such. "Faith seeking understanding" sounds good to me.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> And my peers in philosophy and science would ask why I would believe such things, given my education, probably attributing my beliefs to cognitive dissonance.



You don't believe something comes out of nothing without an almighty agent. You don't attribute divine attributes to impersonal matter. You don't deceive people into thinking they know things by sight which are only known by faith. If God does not exist "science" is merely one human group's attempt to control nature and dominate over another human group; it can have no moral power by which to make valid judgements on others. You are entitled to choose your cognitive dissonance over theirs. But if God does exist, as any person who has the courage to seek Him will find, then their choice will be to their everlasting shame and yours to your everlasting joy.


----------



## VictorBravo

Loopie said:


> The sun certainly stopped moving, and how that plays out based on our current understanding of the solar system is that the earth stopped rotating.






armourbearer said:


> The sun stood still. Everyone agrees that is what the text says. On another level one might engage in the process of abstraction and try to work out what that means within a Copernican framework; but it should be acknowledged this is an abstraction, not an interpretation. The idea that the book of Joshua means something other than what it says, and that this esoteric meaning anticipated the Copernican revolution, is just plain silly. The Bible deserves more respect than that.






Afterthought said:


> Well, if one ignores cosmology or relative motion or observed motion, etc., one would have to say the sun stood still.



I used to have trouble with the topics, but I now can confess that I am a full-blown Geocentrist. And, yes, I have studied astronomy, astrophysics, relativity, and I used to know my Lagrangian mechanics (it's been a long time).

But my perspective has changed. When Scripture tells me that Christ upholds the universe, I've been forced to take that literally. That means every Celestial motion is constantly being caused by him. Metaphorically: the Son of God's hands push every molecule and star continuously.

And all of it is orderly--supremely so. And we observe this order and come up with summaries of those observations. We call them laws of nature. But they aren't laws of creation. They are shorthand summaries.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> To clarify what I was asking, it was a question of a hermeneutical nature. What causes you in this instance to let science into your interpretation of the passage while leaving it out elsewhere? Could not someone just say, they do not believe the disciples were hallucinating when they saw Jesus walk on water, but Jesus really did a miracle by causing a sand bank to rise or rocks or caused the water to freeze over wherever his feet were or whatever so that he could walk on it?



I am sure that someone could come up with all sorts of theories. But we see that when Peter jumped out of the boat and walked to Jesus, the disciples were already a few miles from shore, and the boat itself did not run aground on the 'raised up sand'. So again, context and logic point us to the most reasonable explanation based on what the text of Scripture has presented us. All we know of the situation concerning Joshua was that the sun 'stood still' long enough for the battle to be won. Well, IF planet earth was designed by God to rotate around the sun, then the only reasonable explanation is that the earth stopped rotating. Let me ask you this question: Do you believe right now that the sun revolves around the earth? This is a yes or no question. If yes, then why? If no, they why not? 



Afterthought said:


> Or to use another example of some things that actually are said, could not someone say that when the light bearers were "created" on day 4, they really do believe that these objects became visible to a person on earth on day 4 because they really do believe God removed the dust cloud that would have obstructed them?



Well, that is a very good question. It does say that they were 'created' on day 4, and the term 'created' should give us guidance. The description of something being 'created' seems to be of a different category in some way than something 'standing still' in the sky. Again, if the sun actually stood still in the sky, and it wasn't an illusion, then either the sun itself stopped revolving around the earth, or the earth stopped rotating. If you can think of a third option, please let me know.



Afterthought said:


> Or that when God created light, that they really do believe God created stars and galaxies and other light bearers on day 1?



Perhaps it is apples and oranges to compare the act of creation with the act of suspending the 'natural laws' of the universe. The verb 'create' itself seems pretty clear-cut, whereas the concept of the sun standing still does not necessarily have to imply that the sun stopped rotating around the earth. Again, I would ask if you believe right now in geocentrism, and if not, then why not?



Afterthought said:


> Or that it is clear we see exploding stars and distant objects, so the miracle of Creation must have actually taken a long time, perhaps the days were only ordinary days with respect to an observer on earth, or perhaps they were only ordinary days with respect to the original audience, the days actually being long periods of time or some sort of figurative structure?



There are simply a lot of things we do not know, and I would argue that we have much more evidence of the earth rotating around the sun than the theory of the age of the earth. If you had the money, you could fly to the moon and watch the earth rotate right now. Has God so tricked our senses that we cannot rely upon any kind of sense-perception? Are we utterly incapable of discerning anything about his creation apart from what is written in Scripture? Certainly I would argue that Scripture should be our guide, but Scripture does not tell you how a combustion engine works, or anything like that. We humans DO discover TRUE things about God's creation, and if the God of creation is the SAME God of the Bible, then they should harmonize with each other.



Afterthought said:


> So to ask again: What do you use to determine when empirical science may be let into your interpretation? Why let it in for the events described in one case and not in others? (And as a scientific aside, I'm not sure that the earth ceasing to rotate is sufficient to account for the miracle even on heliocentric or a-centric grounds.)



Because in some cases we can actually demonstrate and see how the universe is functioning. Perhaps thousands of years ago the idea of the earth revolving around the sun was a theory. But now you can actually go into space, enter into a geo-stationary orbit, and find yourself rotating with the earth. This is a far cry from 'theories' such as evolution.



Afterthought said:


> Well, I don't know if I want to tread this ground again, since I have nothing new to add in arguing that science and Scripture contradict each other in what facts they give, and so, especially with miracles (and especially with Creation), there is no reason to believe that the truth of a particular statement will leave evidence in extra-Biblical history and in the world. However, to clarify what I mean by "science trumping Scripture" I mean that in any particular case in which the Bible says X and science says ~X, it is determined that ~X is the actual truth of the matter. From there, on your view (since other views would conclude something different from those facts), it seems to me you would say that the Bible also actually says ~X too and that we had simply been misunderstanding it until now.



How does true science and Scripture contradict each other? Can you give me an example where this is the case? How can you say that the truth of a particular statement in the Bible will not leave any trace? Think about the arguments that we use against those who attack Christianity. Some people argue that the early Christian church gathered together all of the 'missing gospels' that they did not like and destroyed them. Some argue that false teachings were inserted into the earliest manuscripts, giving us a corrupted Bible today. All of those arguments are arguments from silence. There is no historical evidence to back them up. If the early Church had gathered together and destroyed certain manuscripts, there would be evidence of that in the ripples of history, just like there is evidence for what Uthman did with the Quran. Historical events cause ripples in history, and they leave traces behind. I believe that the miracles in Scripture have done exactly that. Again, if the God of the Bible is the same God of creation, then what is evident within creation should line up with what is described in Scripture.



Afterthought said:


> In contrast, I think the way to characterize the view I am presenting and which Rev. Winzer had mentioned would be: that in a particular case in which the Bible says X and science says ~X, both may be true within their epistemic domains; the Bible's domain being absolute reality.



But, I would argue that there are a few presuppositions here that are not being addressed. You MIGHT think the Bible says 'X', but maybe you are wrong (there are many heretical groups out there that twist Scripture to say things it does not say). Again, you MIGHT think that science says 'not X', but maybe you are wrong (there are many scientists out there who are not engaging in true or fair science because they have a bias against God and against the idea of Creation).



Afterthought said:


> Hence, there is no reason to conclude from the bare fact that one says X and one says ~X that either our interpretation of Scripture is wrong or our science must be modified.



Unless your interpretation is actually wrong and your science actually has to be modified. Again, you presuppose that your interpretation of Scripture is ALWAYS 100% correct. Do you really believe that to be the case? I am not saying that nothing in Scripture can be known. What I am saying is that as a lone, individual Christian, I am not infallible. I made a lot of hermeneutical mistakes when I was a younger, immature, Christian (I was fully Arminian). And though today I think that I am doing a better job of understanding Scripture, I know that I am not perfect, and still need to grow and mature.


----------



## Loopie

VictorBravo said:


> I used to have trouble with the topics, but I now can confess that I am a full-blown Geocentrist. And, yes, I have studied astronomy, astrophysics, relativity, and I used to know my Lagrangian mechanics (it's been a long time).
> 
> But my perspective has changed. When Scripture tells me that Christ upholds the universe, I've been forced to take that literally. That means every Celestial motion is constantly being caused by him. Metaphorically: the Son of God's hands push every molecule and star continuously.
> 
> And all of it is orderly--supremely so. And we observe this order and come up with summaries of those observations. We call them laws of nature. But they aren't laws of creation. They are shorthand summaries.



With all respect let me ask you the following question: Do you believe in God's use of secondary causes as means of accomplishing his will? The idea of him directly pushing molecules around with his hand constantly seems to imply that there are no secondary causes in the universe. Is that what you would assert?


----------



## earl40

VictorBravo said:


> I used to have trouble with the topics, but I now can confess that I am a full-blown Geocentrist. And, yes, I have studied astronomy, astrophysics, relativity, and I used to know my Lagrangian mechanics (it's been a long time).
> 
> But my perspective has changed. When Scripture tells me that Christ upholds the universe, I've been forced to take that literally. That means every Celestial motion is constantly being caused by him. Metaphorically: the Son of God's hands push every molecule and star continuously.
> 
> And all of it is orderly--supremely so. And we observe this order and come up with summaries of those observations. We call them laws of nature. But they aren't laws of creation. They are shorthand summaries.



No doubt the Lord Who pushes every star and planet in the universe could have held the entire universe still. Thus our sun could have stood still along with the entire universe at that time. An appeal to geocentricity need not be held In my most humble opinion.


----------



## Loopie

I would also like to briefly point out that the discussion is not simply about whether the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun. The question also is: Does the earth rotate about its axis? Even though I believe that the earth orbits the sun, it is the rotation of the earth that brings about the visual effect of sunrise and sunset. If one were to argue that the sun orbits the earth, one would have to also address whether or not the earth rotates on its axis.


----------



## VictorBravo

Loopie said:


> Do you believe in God's use of secondary causes as means of accomplishing his will? The idea of him directly pushing molecules around with his hand constantly seems to imply that there are no secondary causes in the universe. Is that what you would assert?



I agree with secondary causes. But I'm careful about saying things like "things fall because of gravity." My statement (when I am thinking about it) would be along the lines of: "Things fall. We observe there is a regularity to it, systematize it, and describe it as the law of gravity."

I had a conversation long ago with a physics professor discussing how a thermocouple psychrometer worked for measuring humidity within a leaf. His basic question to us was why a gas's temperature would increase with pressure. My answer was along the lines of an increase in thermodynamic interactions of the molecules. He shouted, "NO! It is because of Charles' Law!"

So, my not too facetious response was, "how did those molecules behave before Charles came along?"


----------



## Loopie

VictorBravo said:


> I agree with secondary causes. But I'm careful about saying things like "things fall because of gravity." My statement (when I am thinking about it) would be along the lines of: "Things fall. We observe there is a regularity to it, systematize it, and describe it as the law of gravity."
> 
> I had a conversation long ago with a physics professor discussing how a thermocouple psychrometer worked for measuring humidity within a leaf. His basic question to us was why a gas's temperature would increase with pressure. My answer was along the lines of an increase in thermodynamic interactions of the molecules. He shouted, "NO! It is because of Charles' Law!"
> 
> So, my not too facetious response was, "how did those molecules behave before Charles came along?"



I completely understand the point you are trying to make. The so-called 'laws' of the universe are merely our observations of how things normally function. I recognize that God has established the normative way by which the universe functions, and those basic principles are therefore called 'laws'. Of course, they imply a law-giver, and so they point to the glory and power of God. 

I understand the counter-reaction towards those who idolize laws as if those are gods themselves. But I guess I would say that we must be careful about going too far and completely eradicating any notion that God has established natural laws that function in accordance with his will. I believe there is a middle road that can be taken between the deist (who says that God created laws but then remains aloof from his creation) and the other extreme (which says that there really are no such things as natural laws or secondary means, and that God directly does EVERYTHING). We certainly use the middle road in discussing the existence of sin. God ordained that Adam would take from the tree and eat, but that does not mean that God actually directly moved Adam's jaw as he chewed the fruit.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> You don't believe something comes out of nothing without an almighty agent. You don't attribute divine attributes to impersonal matter. You don't deceive people into thinking they know things by sight which are only known by faith. If God does not exist "science" is merely one human group's attempt to control nature and dominate over another human group; it can have no moral power by which to make valid judgements on others. You are entitled to choose your cognitive dissonance over theirs. But if God does exist, as any person who has the courage to seek Him will find, then their choice will be to their everlasting shame and yours to your everlasting joy.


That's a good point, thank you.



VictorBravo said:


> I used to have trouble with the topics, but I now can confess that I am a full-blown Geocentrist. And, yes, I have studied astronomy, astrophysics, relativity, and I used to know my Lagrangian mechanics (it's been a long time).
> 
> But my perspective has changed. When Scripture tells me that Christ upholds the universe, I've been forced to take that literally. That means every Celestial motion is constantly being caused by him. Metaphorically: the Son of God's hands push every molecule and star continuously.
> 
> And all of it is orderly--supremely so. And we observe this order and come up with summaries of those observations. We call them laws of nature. But they aren't laws of creation. They are shorthand summaries.


Thank you. In a strange way, it's encouraging to know such people as you exist. I too agree with that view of "laws of nature," which is one motivation behind my preferred description of physics as an exploration of God's ordinary governing of the world.



earl40 said:


> No doubt the Lord Who pushes every star and planet in the universe could have held the entire universe still. Thus our sun could have stood still along with the entire universe at that time. An appeal to geocentricity need not be held In my most humble opinion.


Yes, that was partially my point in noting that even on modern views, the earth ceasing to rotate does not seem to be sufficient. Basically, if the sun standing still was to not be merely an illusion, more things need to cease, and everything stopping is certainly one way to accomplish that. Regardless though, such cannot be viewed as an interpretation of the text, but an understanding of what the sun ceasing to move means in our modern frameworks.


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> God ordained that Adam would take from the tree and eat, but that does not mean that God actually directly moved Adam's jaw as he chewed the fruit.



I think you may have construed secondary causation as some kind of divine indirect causation. The Bible clearly speaks of God moving all things. God exercises what is called a providence of gubernation, so that all live and move and have their being in Him. Adam lived and moved and had his being in God in everything he did, even when he took of the fruit. The sinfulness of the action (as a moral quality) is restricted to Adam, but the action would be impossible without the working of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ex-Nihilo? Why is this such a problem? Did Jesus not do this even? Life from death? Well, maybe that is somewhat of a bad argument. Some of the arguments here almost sounds like Diest arguments. Even in a geocentric system the earth had to stop also.


----------



## Afterthought

This is one of those times I wish I had Rev. Winzer's ability to respond shortly to lengthy posts by getting to the heart of the matter, leaving the details to sort themselves out. School starts up for me again soon, and I have stuff to do to prepare and projects that need to be finished or nearly finished if I ever want to finish them any time soon. So I don't know whether I'll be able to keep this up; I may, but I may not. I do know that more than one PB thread I have started during the school semester has sunk into locking because I just did not have time to continue to bump it with relevant information.

To start, I don't see what my views on heliocentrism or geocentrism have to do with anything in this thread. I realize you want a simple yes or no, but I can't give any more of an answer than I did before: I don't know. I do know that modern science is greatly in favor of heliocentrism with respect to the earth's and sun's motion relative to each other. I also know that motion is complicated and that a different understanding of gravity could completely change that consensus. I know that the Scriptures in Joshua teach that the sun really did stand still, but (a) since I cannot use cosmology or a modern understanding of science to understand that event, I cannot connect it to our modern science and so am left not knowing what that means: there simply are not enough details for use in any system, as I noted when answering Mr. Winzer's question to me. Did the sun stop relative to the earth? Did it stop relative to something else? Did it stop absolutely? Did everything stop, and the sun and moon were the only objects mentioned to have stop? I do not know, since I cannot use any of that to extract information from the text or in understanding the text.

And (b) there is no information about whether the sun was moving around the earth or orbiting it, so no "centrism" can be taken from the text, only the movement of the sun. And (c) even if the sun did orbit the earth, is there reason to believe that it still does so? Perhaps after that event, God restarted the orbits differently? So from that text alone, I do not know which view is correct. (Though I'm wondering whether the caution I was given about not abstracting cosmological information from the text was simply the same thing I said earlier about the difference between motion and a theory of motion. And so I wonder if it might actually be legitimate to say that the sun moved relative to the earth and that it moved such that its cessation prolonged the day.) And (d) I'm not entirely sure heliocentrism is incompatible with the sun really moving (presumably with respect to the earth?), since it would say there is a sense in which the sun only apparently was in motion, but it might also say there is a sense in which it really was in motion with respect to the earth.

The only reason I can think that you would ask me this question would be to show me that I believe science works, and so I must hold your view to be correct. But never have I nor anyone on this thread questioned the value of science or that it is getting at something real, except with a couple of posts by Rev. Winzer that showed complete doubt in the theory of evolution and less complete doubt that the ages science predicts is sufficient to account for everything by its own standards.

That leads to your questioning of the view I am promoting, which questions really just reflect that you believe science and Scripture relate to the same domain of knowledge; I have been promoting that they relate to two different domains of knowledge. You claim (1) it presupposes our understanding of Scripture to be infallible, (2) it makes our sciences useless, (3) it makes our senses unreliable, that (4) you deny that there has ever been a case where Scripture and science contradict each other, and that (5) miracles not leaving evidence in history makes our apologetics weak. In turn...

(1) Firstly, I never said that our understanding of Scripture is 100% correct in the case of contradiction; all I said was that the bare fact of contradiction is no reason to suppose error in either our understanding of Scripture or empirical science, and so there is no reason from that fact alone to have to change either. Secondly, even if we were to play a "probability game", our understanding of Scripture and our empirical science are nowhere near each other. I mentioned several reasons why, and I could add some more as to why our understanding of Scripture is vastly more reliable than our empirical science, and so the probability greatly lies with our understanding of Scripture being correct (assuming that one's understanding was arrived at ordinary means, e.g., making use of the teachers God put in the Church now and in history).

Thirdly, whatever change in understanding that may or may not occur, Scripture should be interpreted as though that finding never took place, i.e., according to its rules of interpretation, and science should be understood as though Scripture had said nothing of the matter, i.e., it should continue according to its own "rules of interpretation." Fourthly, whatever one decides the Scriptures teach, that individual should be received as the Word of God, not merely a private opinion. Fifthly, "interpretation" means something different when applied to Scripture than when applied to empirical science, since we are told to "hear" it, to "listen" to it, showing that it is actually a matter of listening, though we can call it interpretation.

(2) Firstly, I have no reason to doubt science, provided it is understood within its epistemic domain and we recognize its provisional character. As noted, when a contradiction occurs, I affirm that they both _might_ be true with their proper domains. Really, that's the only way to affirm two seemingly contradictory statements without accepting a contradiction in one's system of thought. Secondly, science is different from sense perception, since it is a systematic understanding of what we perceive with our senses, not what we perceive with our senses themselves.

(3) Firstly, this was a question I had asked earlier on in this thread, and I have received no answer yet, though I attempted an answer of my own. My answer here will also be an attempt, but it should be noted that I affirm the reliability of sense perception and via Turretin, their role in articles of faith. Secondly, your example you give of geostationary orbits and that we could quite literally see with our own eyes the rotation of the earth, I affirm. Indeed, if we look at other solar systems, we never see a star orbiting one of its planets. How that works out while maintaining Scripture? I don't know. This two domains of knowledge view doesn't pretend to give a solution or reconciliation, but boldly maintains and argues that we can reasonably maintain ignorance of the matter of reconciliation while holding on to the knowledge that we have within their proper domains (i.e., not denying that according to the probability our science gives or the certainty our senses would give that the earth rotates). But to answer your example concerning sense perception I would additionally note...

(a) On earth, our senses show the sun is the object that moves. You have already denied our senses give us true information in this case, the information being only apparent. Why not in the case of changing our reference point? Why not affirm that such could also be an illusion and merely apparent motion? The only answer is because of our sciences, but then we are no longer speaking of sense perception. (b) The reference point you have chosen may not be sufficient. It could be that whatever reference point God uses does indeed have the earth motionless and non-rotating. And it could be that some other reference point in the universe may have such, though I seriously doubt it. The main point though is that the light of nature teaches us that sometimes a change in view and stepping back from a system is needed to gain a proper perspective on the matter.

(4) Firstly, contradiction should be expected. True science even contradicts itself over time, and such is expected since it is provisional and an open canon. If it contradicts itself while Scripture always says the same thing, then it is obvious that contradiction should not be unexpected between the two. Of course, here you will simply say that it is not true science that disagreed with Scripture or a true understanding of Scripture that created the contradiction. I disagree, believing that true science is more or less what we have now (in terms of method), and I maintain that the geocentrism issue itself provides an example of science's contradictory nature (scientists would call it "self-correcting" nature). Either (a) true science was not used when it was believed geocentrism was true, (b) you simply do not call such "true science", (c) you call it true science but claim it never contradicted Scripture. Obviously, (a) will need to be demonstrated, but the science at the time held geocentrism not merely for dogmatic reasons but because there was not enough empirical evidence to overturn it. (b) is arbitrary. And for (c), if one holds a heliocentric _interpretation_ of Scripture, stating that we had misunderstood Scripture before, then Scripture always _taught_ heliocentrism, so during the time when geocentrism was mainstream science, the two contradicted each other. If one holds the Scriptures said nothing on the matter, then one must stop trying to understand the miracle in terms of heliocentrism, and this historical example of contradiction I've been giving would no longer work, for even on my view then, there would be no contradiction (since one can't contradict what the Scriptures say nothing on); but nevertheless, this example would show science contradicts itself over time and so contradiction with Scripture isn't unexpected.

Secondly, I gave an example: Creation. Since such is beyond the ability of true science to discover, being known only by faith, whatever science has to say on the matter will most likely contradict what Scripture says on the matter. And really any other examples (e.g., miracles) where it has been said science contradicts Scripture will do too; perhaps also empirical history or archaeology; also such things as that the sun creates light on its own or that we see star events too far away. You claim that such claims by science are not true science. I deny the claims per se are not claims of true science; it only becomes false science when the refusal to recognize its epistemic domain occurs, though the literal wording of the claim does not necessarily change in either case. Thirdly, this view of contradiction recognizes that God is the God of truth and of both domains; it just recognizes that these domains are ruled in different manners, which manners can give arise to contradiction.

(5) Firstly, please note that the case of contradiction occurs only with _empirical sciences_, not historical accounts. Secondly, I did not say miracles or particular truth statements never leave traces in history, but only that they do not necessarily do so; the same is true for ordinary historical events. Thirdly, if one holds to mature Creation (as some Creation scientists do), then there can be no trace of that miracle, but regardless, Creation being known by faith only, no traces of the miracle itself can be found, though traces of design and of our Designer can be. Fourthly, the question of this two domains view weakening our apologetic was a question I myself asked and have received no answer to yet, but the best answer I can give (though it does not resolve the questions I raised) was what I said in the "firstly": that contradiction is only between empirical sciences and Scripture, not historical accounts, since historical accounts are linked to the same domain as Scripture, namely, what absolutely did occur.


As for the answers to the questions I put to you, I'm still not sure you understood my question or that I'm understanding your answer. To repeat, I was asking a hermeneutical question: What allows you to decide when to insert science into your interpretation and when not to? What keeps your use of the passage in Joshua from applying elsewhere? You answered a bunch of particulars (apologies for not clarifying better in order to save you all that work!), which though I am tempted to delve into because I do not think they were answered sufficiently, I think doing such will only obscure the main point of the question, and I don't know if I could do so in a way that would not push you to old earth Creation science, in which the possible meaning of words becomes the actual meaning because of something science says. But nevertheless, it seems to me that from the particular examples of using an interpretive scheme, I nailed your view earlier: Given a contradiction, look at both carefully and whichever has the most evidence (whether that be your understanding of the Scripture or the evidence of science) is the one that is most probably true and so the other must be modified or re-understood in light of that truth.

And really, this view is shared by old earth creationist, and some theistic evolutionists and young earth creationists alike. The only difference between them is what they regard as "true science" or what claims of science have more evidence, and what understandings of the Bible have more evidence or cannot possibly be twisted to suit the new science. This can be quite an alarming view, in a way and can make Bible interpretation provisional; I look at the Creation magazines and creation science websites and I wonder: "Do people who use these resources only believe the way they do because they believe the science supports their view? What would happen if science said something else or they came to believe science said something else? I know they would deny the hypothetical, but it seems their faith is in science on this matter, not God's Word (and hypotheticals may be fine when discussing hermeneutics anyway?...)."

(And it should be noted here that if it sounds like I am focusing on science changing one's understanding of Scripture too much instead of the other way (i.e., it almost always occurs that one has an understanding of the Scriptures that is challenged by science and then the science is accepted or rejected, instead of having an understanding of science first that is challenged by an understanding of Scripture that is accepted or rejected), I would note that temporally this is what usually happens, since one usually has an understanding of Scripture before science says something, since science is always on the move and Scripture is easier to understand; so it usually practically comes down to evaluating whether the science is good or not, rather than a particular understanding of the Scriptures being correct.)

The only ones that use this paradigm whom I know do not fall into this problem are those who (a) Given a contradiction (Bible says X and science says ~X), affirm science is always true (~X is true), which is rationalistic or (b) Given a contradiction, affirm the Bible's statement is always true and science is always false, and re-interpret the science in light of it, which view will probably end up with a speculative science that may theoretically end up destroying our extra-Biblical knowledge if carried out in a particular manner (though there may be place for such a discipline, nevertheless). Whatever problems the two domains view has, the nice thing about it is that it maintains the integrity of both the Scriptures and how they are to be interpreted, and the sciences and how they are to be run. Indeed, I wonder whether any view but the two domains view can properly uphold the integrity of both; I had a passing thought earlier today that those who hold to a young earth because they believe that the science is incorrect (and so their understanding of the Bible is correct) and that true science vindicates them actually end up destroying the integrity of Biblical interpretation, but I don't remember that thought so I cannot elaborate how! And of course, as an argument for it, the two domains view properly recognizes that Scripture and science are operating in two different domains.

I will admit though that the approach Christians have seemed to have had towards science historically has been the view you are advocating, though I can find the two domains view in seed form in Turretin, so I'm sure that view has some historical precedence too.

But really, the main point is (a) Scripture should be interpreted in its own right, (b) empirical science should be interpreted in its own right, (c) if in doing so they contradict each other, there is no necessary need to modify one's understanding of one or the other, (d) whatever the Scriptures say is absolute reality and whatever science says is limited reality, (e) one shouldn't interpret the Scriptures with science in such a way that it changes what the Scriptures say, which in particular means that one should not present the heliocentric view of Joshua as the teaching of Scripture or what happened in that event but as an extra-Biblical theory showing what "the sun stood still" means within the context of that particular theory. There is also (f) that it can be expected that Scripture and science contradict each other, but this and other subsidiaries are details and not the main point.


----------



## Afterthought

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ex-Nihilo? Why is this such a problem? Did Jesus not do this even? Life from death? Well, maybe that is somewhat of a bad argument. Some of the arguments here almost sounds like Diest arguments. Even in a geocentric system the earth had to stop also.


Sorry if there is any confusion, but so far as I can tell, none have seen Ex-Nihilo as a problem. (If your post is referring to any of mine, I apologize if it seems so! Any arguments I have given that might possibly sound "Deistic" are merely reductios trying to probe the consistency of particular views.) And perhaps in some geocentric systems, the earth might have to stop (perhaps one affirms the earth moves in some manner with respect to the center of the solar system), but many geocentric views also hold that the earth does not move absolutely (because of passages in the Bible) and so did not have to stop, but that's a good point; if one only holds a relative geocentrism, the earth might have to stop relative to the solar system or some other object.


----------



## VictorBravo

Loopie said:


> But I guess I would say that we must be careful about going too far and completely eradicating any notion that God has established natural laws that function in accordance with his will.



My view is contrary to that worry. I firmly believe God has established natural laws. Scripture plainly teaches this. God governs his creation and it (notwithstanding our sin) obeys him. God has demonstrated and told us that his creation is orderly. No other mechanism is needed.

Our world is so steeped in the material/empirical view that we forget the origins of that view. I credit my first college-level physics professor (back in 1976) with teaching me the proper view of the scientific method. He was not a Christian, nor was I. But he was honest. He introduced his young scholars to the philosophy of science in a 30 minute lecture. Some points I remember from him:

1. The scientist self-consciously decides to look only at the physical realm for study.
2. This deliberate focus necessarily means that science has absolutely nothing to say about the non-physical.
3. The scientist who, after long study, decides that he has proven God does not exist deceives himself, because he was never looking at God in the first place.

Pretty basic stuff, really. Nothing very complicated. Yet in our day we are so used to to the wonders achieved by science that we forget it has nothing at all to say about God or even the origins of creation. It can only legitimately report observations. Conclusions made beyond those observations are at best speculation.

Because of the pervasiveness of this view, I find I have to force myself to recognize that our empirical study of creation can only describe the workings of God's laws. Our descriptions of God's order can never be more than descriptions. They should not be mistaken for God's true law.



Afterthought said:


> Thank you. In a strange way, it's encouraging to know such people as you exist.



I hope I'm not too strange. I was provocative in saying I'm a Geocentrist. But I do that mostly to remind myself of my position in creation.

To be sure, I am far from a Luddite. I use the empirically derived "laws of nature" all the time. Man was created to systematize. We saw Adam classify the animals. This led to the important discovery that there was no suitable companion to him. Consider how profound an observation that was! Adam, using the innate faculties God gave him, introduced a taxonomy and classification system, and noted that he didn't yet fit within that scheme. He needed a wife. That's a good and proper use of empirical observation.

If I wanted to send a satellite into orbit for some useful purpose, of course I'd use the reliable equations discovered by diligent observation and study. God's universe is orderly, and if we find a short-hand method of predicting the outcome of certain actions, it is quite useful for those purposes. But it is altogether another thing to smugly conclude that our discovery of relationships means that we understand fundamental reasons why the outcome is predictable. 

Christian or non-Christian, it doesn't matter: every time we confidently act in such a way as to obtain a likely outcome, we are acting in faith that God's universe remains orderly. Stepping on the floor after getting out of bed is an act of faith whether we acknowledge it or not.


----------



## py3ak

VictorBravo said:


> Stepping on the floor after getting out of bed is an act of faith whether we acknowledge it or not.



This is my top reason for sleeping in!


----------



## VictorBravo

py3ak said:


> This is my top reason for sleeping in!



You of little faith! 

I confess occasional paralyzing morning doubts myself.


----------



## Afterthought

VictorBravo said:


> I hope I'm not too strange. I was provocative in saying I'm a Geocentrist. But I do that mostly to remind myself of my position in creation.
> 
> To be sure, I am far from a Luddite. I use the empirically derived "laws of nature" all the time. Man was created to systematize. We saw Adam classify the animals. This led to the important discovery that there was no suitable companion to him. Consider how profound an observation that was! Adam, using the innate faculties God gave him, introduced a taxonomy and classification system, and noted that he didn't yet fit within that scheme. He needed a wife. That's a good and proper use of empirical observation.
> 
> If I wanted to send a satellite into orbit for some useful purpose, of course I'd use the reliable equations discovered by diligent observation and study. God's universe is orderly, and if we find a short-hand method of predicting the outcome of certain actions, it is quite useful for those purposes. But it is altogether another thing to smugly conclude that our discovery of relationships means that we understand fundamental reasons why the outcome is predictable.
> 
> Christian or non-Christian, it doesn't matter: every time we confidently act in such a way as to obtain a likely outcome, we are acting in faith that God's universe remains orderly. Stepping on the floor after getting out of bed is an act of faith whether we acknowledge it or not.


Nah, not too strange! But thanks! I think I'm beginning to see why the Christian's view of the laws are that as descriptions rather than explanations of reality, though I'll want to think about that one more before uttering something further in public about it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

py3ak said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stepping on the floor after getting out of bed is an act of faith whether we acknowledge it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my top reason for sleeping in!
Click to expand...


I don't believe this for a minute as a breath needs to be taken after it's butt has been spanked in a new born's life. But then again I love sleeping in. I guess it depends on what a bed is. Mine is merely reaction to that I have to do something since I was born. I know people who wish they weren't.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, You wouldn't believe the discussions I see now days. They are nothing new. Jonah was not real even though Jesus said the Nivenite's would raise up and judge. Sometimes we just have to believe The Lord over Science. Did you know that the Exodus didn't happen?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, I found this interesting in the discussion.

The Wittenberg Door: Notable Quote: Herman Bavinck


----------



## earl40

earl40 said:


> No doubt the Lord Who pushes every star and planet in the universe could have held the entire universe still. Thus our sun could have stood still along with the entire universe at that time. An appeal to geocentricity need not be held In my most humble opinion.





Afterthought said:


> Yes, that was partially my point in noting that even on modern views, the earth ceasing to rotate does not seem to be sufficient. Basically, if the sun standing still was to not be merely an illusion, more things need to cease, and everything stopping is certainly one way to accomplish that. Regardless though, such cannot be viewed as an interpretation of the text, but an understanding of what the sun ceasing to move means in our modern frameworks.



Of course if geocentrism is not the correct model God created, our "modern" knowledge of the universe explains perfectly that God stopped the sun as scripture says He did by stopping everything in the universe. Thus an appeal to geocentrism need not be believed to believe God stopped the sun revolving around the earth. 

The topic in Josh says the sun and moon stood still though it does not say they were the only two objects to stay still in the heavens. This is something like the ladies at the tomb. Were there two? One account mentions one the other two. Where there two there is one. The same could be said that author simply chose to include or emphasize the sun and moon in his account.


----------



## Afterthought

Bavinck sounds good to me! 



earl40 said:


> Of course if geocentrism is not the correct model God created, our "modern" knowledge of the universe explains perfectly that God stopped the sun as scripture says He did by stopping everything in the universe. Thus an appeal to geocentrism need not be believed to believe God stopped the sun revolving around the earth.
> 
> The topic in Josh says the sun and moon stood still though it does not say they were the only two objects to stay still in the heavens. This is something like the ladies at the tomb. Were there two? One account mentions one the other two. Where there two there is one. The same could be said that author simply chose to include or emphasize the sun and moon in his account.


That is only the case if one is allowed to conclude that two objects being stopped does not preclude more objects being stopped. I don't know whether that is so or not, but certainly such concerns are arising from our modern cosmological framework rather than from the text itself. Otherwise, if cosmological information is allowed to be pulled from the text, then it does necessarily imply the sun moves such that its cessation causes a prolonging of the day; and perhaps other passages would suggest that the sun's motion is an orbit around the earth; which then necessarily implies geocentrism.

But anyway, again, from what I understand such cannot be presented as an interpretation of the text. The interpretation of the text is that the sun really stopped. According to our modern knowledge, the sun stopping means that more objects stop along with the sun--perhaps everything--depending on what the sun is stopping relative to (relative to the earth, it would be mostly still anyway). But to then say that everything stopped in the miracle recorded is probably going too far because such then becomes an interpretation of the text by our modern cosmological framework, rather than merely understanding what "the sun stopped" means according to our modern knowledge or to check whether our modern knowledge can account for a sun that really moves in such a way. And if we cannot extract cosmological information from the passage, then nothing can be concluded one way or another, since our modern cosmological framework requires more information than simply that the "sun stopped" (it needs to know with respect to what it stopped). So it seems to me; I don't pretend to be a skilled exegete.

It seems to me that the case of the ladies at the tomb might not be an appropriate parallel since the Scriptures themselves fill in the appropriate details? A better parallel might be if we believed there were more than two ladies at the tomb (perhaps some extra-Biblical evidence shows that it would be nigh impossible for only two to arrive at the tomb), but then such becomes an unhelpful parallel because like with having all the objects stopping though only two are mentioned, there is no positive evidence in the text to believe it or negative evidence in the text to cast doubt on it, which is why this particular example was chosen (cause there seems to be no other way to establish the view that the mentioning of some objects doesn't preclude other objects).


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> To start, I don't see what my views on heliocentrism or geocentrism have to do with anything in this thread. I realize you want a simple yes or no, but I can't give any more of an answer than I did before: I don't know. I do know that modern science is greatly in favor of heliocentrism with respect to the earth's and sun's motion relative to each other. I also know that motion is complicated and that a different understanding of gravity could completely change that consensus. I know that the Scriptures in Joshua teach that the sun really did stand still, but (a) since I cannot use cosmology or a modern understanding of science to understand that event, I cannot connect it to our modern science and so am left not knowing what that means: there simply are not enough details for use in any system, as I noted when answering Mr. Winzer's question to me. Did the sun stop relative to the earth? Did it stop relative to something else? Did it stop absolutely? Did everything stop, and the sun and moon were the only objects mentioned to have stop? I do not know, since I cannot use any of that to extract information from the text or in understanding the text.



I was only asking you because I thought it was important that we each understand the position that the other was taking. I was not trying to be sneaky, or rude, or harsh, but simply trying to understand what exactly you are proposing.



Afterthought said:


> And (b) there is no information about whether the sun was moving around the earth or orbiting it, so no "centrism" can be taken from the text, only the movement of the sun. And (c) even if the sun did orbit the earth, is there reason to believe that it still does so? Perhaps after that event, God restarted the orbits differently? So from that text alone, I do not know which view is correct. (Though I'm wondering whether the caution I was given about not abstracting cosmological information from the text was simply the same thing I said earlier about the difference between motion and a theory of motion. And so I wonder if it might actually be legitimate to say that the sun moved relative to the earth and that it moved such that its cessation prolonged the day.) And (d) I'm not entirely sure heliocentrism is incompatible with the sun really moving (presumably with respect to the earth?), since it would say there is a sense in which the sun only apparently was in motion, but it might also say there is a sense in which it really was in motion with respect to the earth.



Well, I respectfully disagree with the idea that we are not allowed to make any conclusions regarding what Scripture says concerning the sun stopping in the sky. An event ACTUALLY took place in history, and this entire thread has been on the discussion as to what exactly happened. I honestly believe that we truly can see the beautiful agreement between God's creation and what God has said in his Word.



Afterthought said:


> The only reason I can think that you would ask me this question would be to show me that I believe science works, and so I must hold your view to be correct. But never have I nor anyone on this thread questioned the value of science or that it is getting at something real, except with a couple of posts by Rev. Winzer that showed complete doubt in the theory of evolution and less complete doubt that the ages science predicts is sufficient to account for everything by its own standards.



Again, everyone has a position, and I was just curious as to what yours was. All I really wanted was to know what you thought, so that I could better interact with you.



Afterthought said:


> (1) Firstly, I never said that our understanding of Scripture is 100% correct in the case of contradiction; all I said was that the bare fact of contradiction is no reason to suppose error in either our understanding of Scripture or empirical science, and so there is no reason from that fact alone to have to change either. Secondly, even if we were to play a "probability game", our understanding of Scripture and our empirical science are nowhere near each other. I mentioned several reasons why, and I could add some more as to why our understanding of Scripture is vastly more reliable than our empirical science, and so the probability greatly lies with our understanding of Scripture being correct (assuming that one's understanding was arrived at ordinary means, e.g., making use of the teachers God put in the Church now and in history).



But again, I do not believe there ever is a contradiction. There might be something that APPEARS to be a contradiction, but it really is not one once it is analyzed properly. This I think is where we disagree on the use of the word 'contradiction'.



Afterthought said:


> (2) Firstly, I have no reason to doubt science, provided it is understood within its epistemic domain and we recognize its provisional character. As noted, when a contradiction occurs, I affirm that they both _might_ be true with their proper domains. Really, that's the only way to affirm two seemingly contradictory statements without accepting a contradiction in one's system of thought. Secondly, science is different from sense perception, since it is a systematic understanding of what we perceive with our senses, not what we perceive with our senses themselves.



Again, I do not think true contradictions ever occur. They only appear to be contradictions in the minds of those who either have not analyzed the situation properly, or do not have all of the information.



Afterthought said:


> (3) Firstly, this was a question I had asked earlier on in this thread, and I have received no answer yet, though I attempted an answer of my own. My answer here will also be an attempt, but it should be noted that I affirm the reliability of sense perception and via Turretin, their role in articles of faith. Secondly, your example you give of geostationary orbits and that we could quite literally see with our own eyes the rotation of the earth, I affirm. Indeed, if we look at other solar systems, we never see a star orbiting one of its planets. How that works out while maintaining Scripture? I don't know. This two domains of knowledge view doesn't pretend to give a solution or reconciliation, but boldly maintains and argues that we can reasonably maintain ignorance of the matter of reconciliation while holding on to the knowledge that we have within their proper domains (i.e., not denying that according to the probability our science gives or the certainty our senses would give that the earth rotates). But to answer your example concerning sense perception I would additionally note...



Well, I am not fully understanding what you mean by 'domain of knowledge' in this particular example. Could you please elaborate on that?



Afterthought said:


> (a) On earth, our senses show the sun is the object that moves. You have already denied our senses give us true information in this case, the information being only apparent. Why not in the case of changing our reference point? Why not affirm that such could also be an illusion and merely apparent motion? The only answer is because of our sciences, but then we are no longer speaking of sense perception. (b) The reference point you have chosen may not be sufficient. It could be that whatever reference point God uses does indeed have the earth motionless and non-rotating. And it could be that some other reference point in the universe may have such, though I seriously doubt it. The main point though is that the light of nature teaches us that sometimes a change in view and stepping back from a system is needed to gain a proper perspective on the matter.



Well, if you mean by 'true' information in the sense that our eyes detect some sort of motion taking place, then our senses are indeed giving us true information. But if we detect that motion and then assume that the sun is moving around the earth, then I would argue that we have drawn a wrong conclusion from correct information.



Afterthought said:


> (4) Firstly, contradiction should be expected. True science even contradicts itself over time, and such is expected since it is provisional and an open canon. If it contradicts itself while Scripture always says the same thing, then it is obvious that contradiction should not be unexpected between the two. Of course, here you will simply say that it is not true science that disagreed with Scripture or a true understanding of Scripture that created the contradiction. I disagree, believing that true science is more or less what we have now (in terms of method), and I maintain that the geocentrism issue itself provides an example of science's contradictory nature (scientists would call it "self-correcting" nature). Either (a) true science was not used when it was believed geocentrism was true, (b) you simply do not call such "true science", (c) you call it true science but claim it never contradicted Scripture. Obviously, (a) will need to be demonstrated, but the science at the time held geocentrism not merely for dogmatic reasons but because there was not enough empirical evidence to overturn it. (b) is arbitrary. And for (c), if one holds a heliocentric _interpretation_ of Scripture, stating that we had misunderstood Scripture before, then Scripture always _taught_ heliocentrism, so during the time when geocentrism was mainstream science, the two contradicted each other. If one holds the Scriptures said nothing on the matter, then one must stop trying to understand the miracle in terms of heliocentrism, and this historical example of contradiction I've been giving would no longer work, for even on my view then, there would be no contradiction (since one can't contradict what the Scriptures say nothing on); but nevertheless, this example would show science contradicts itself over time and so contradiction with Scripture isn't unexpected.



I disagree with you that true science is what we have now. Evolutionary theory is NOT true science. What you seem to be suggesting is that there really are true, objective contradictions between God's word and God's creation. To me, this seems to make God inconsistent with himself. I do not believe a true contradiction exists, because I believe that God is perfectly consistent with his actions (creation) and his word (Scripture). I agree that true science was not used when geocentrism was affirmed back in the day. It was merely a theory, just like evolution, and really could not be proven until the modern era. Yet evolution, unlike other theories, by its nature can NEVER be proven to be true, and so it is outside the realm of true science. You say that there was not enough empirical evidence to overturn geocentrism, but one could also say that there was not enough evidence to affirm it either. We simply did not have the means to know for sure, because no experiments or testing could be done in which the conclusions that men jumped to could be shown to be wrong.

As for a contradiction between heliocentrism and the Bible, it is only an apparent contradiction. Again, it is not true science when humans jump to conclusions of the universe as if they are the final determiner of what is true or not true. A humble mind that is in submission to God will yield true science. Again, any contradiction is only an APPARENT contradiction, and will eventually find itself to not be a contradiction at all. Whatever ends up being TRUE about the universe around us will be perfectly in harmony with what Scripture teaches.



Afterthought said:


> Secondly, I gave an example: Creation. Since such is beyond the ability of true science to discover, being known only by faith, whatever science has to say on the matter will most likely contradict what Scripture says on the matter. And really any other examples (e.g., miracles) where it has been said science contradicts Scripture will do too; perhaps also empirical history or archaeology; also such things as that the sun creates light on its own or that we see star events too far away. You claim that such claims by science are not true science. I deny the claims per se are not claims of true science; it only becomes false science when the refusal to recognize its epistemic domain occurs, though the literal wording of the claim does not necessarily change in either case. Thirdly, this view of contradiction recognizes that God is the God of truth and of both domains; it just recognizes that these domains are ruled in different manners, which manners can give arise to contradiction.



I agree. It is outside the realm of science to really speculate on the origin of life or the creation of matter. Again, I do not call that true science. So we see that our definition of what is true science is very different, which is why you can affirm that contradictions exist, but I deny that they exist.



Afterthought said:


> (5) Firstly, please note that the case of contradiction occurs only with _empirical sciences_, not historical accounts. Secondly, I did not say miracles or particular truth statements never leave traces in history, but only that they do not necessarily do so; the same is true for ordinary historical events. Thirdly, if one holds to mature Creation (as some Creation scientists do), then there can be no trace of that miracle, but regardless, Creation being known by faith only, no traces of the miracle itself can be found, though traces of design and of our Designer can be. Fourthly, the question of this two domains view weakening our apologetic was a question I myself asked and have received no answer to yet, but the best answer I can give (though it does not resolve the questions I raised) was what I said in the "firstly": that contradiction is only between empirical sciences and Scripture, not historical accounts, since historical accounts are linked to the same domain as Scripture, namely, what absolutely did occur.



I have never disagreed with you on the issue of creation. As for the two domains that you speak of, I recognize that there are limitations to what should be called true science. Faith and true science do not contradict each other, but rather harmonize with each other. I agree that history is a separate realm from science, since with history you cannot repeat the experiments. I agree that history speaks on what absolutely did occur. I look at science as answering how things normally occur, and what we might expect to occur (aside from any miraculous actions by God). History and science can overlap in certain areas, and they can assist each other as well. If history does not make clear what exactly happened during a particular event, our understanding of what normally happens can help us perhaps get closer to the truth.




Afterthought said:


> As for the answers to the questions I put to you, I'm still not sure you understood my question or that I'm understanding your answer. To repeat, I was asking a hermeneutical question: What allows you to decide when to insert science into your interpretation and when not to? What keeps your use of the passage in Joshua from applying elsewhere? You answered a bunch of particulars (apologies for not clarifying better in order to save you all that work!), which though I am tempted to delve into because I do not think they were answered sufficiently, I think doing such will only obscure the main point of the question, and I don't know if I could do so in a way that would not push you to old earth Creation science, in which the possible meaning of words becomes the actual meaning because of something science says. But nevertheless, it seems to me that from the particular examples of using an interpretive scheme, I nailed your view earlier: Given a contradiction, look at both carefully and whichever has the most evidence (whether that be your understanding of the Scripture or the evidence of science) is the one that is most probably true and so the other must be modified or re-understood in light of that truth.



Negative. We FIRST look at Scripture and read it while utilizing a biblical hermeneutic. We ask ourselves what is specifically being said, to what audience, from what author, for what purpose. We ask ourselves what exactly can be drawn from the text, and how it can be harmonized with other texts of Scripture. Once that is complete, we look up from our Bible and look at God's creation. We glorify God in all that he has created, and we seek to better understand his creation as a means of glorifying him. If we come across something we do not understand, we first look to see what Scripture has said (being careful not to take it beyond the bounds that Scripture has given). If we continue to struggle with something, we ask ourselves FIRST if we are properly analyzing God's creation, or if we have missed something (or if we are jumping to conclusions). If we feel that we have been fair with the information that God's creation is presenting us, we then ask ourselves if perhaps we brought an unwarranted presupposition to our reading of Scripture. If we suspect that we have, then we address the presupposition and determine from Scripture if it is warranted or not. In the particular instance of the sun standing still, I do not believe that God is presenting us with a scientific treatise on how exactly the universe functions. We are simply being told that the sun stood still, and the original author would have been a human who would have looked up and saw that the sun stood still. He was not making a scientific analysis, but was recording simply what he saw taking place.



Afterthought said:


> And really, this view is shared by old earth creationist, and some theistic evolutionists and young earth creationists alike. The only difference between them is what they regard as "true science" or what claims of science have more evidence, and what understandings of the Bible have more evidence or cannot possibly be twisted to suit the new science. This can be quite an alarming view, in a way and can make Bible interpretation provisional; I look at the Creation magazines and creation science websites and I wonder: "Do people who use these resources only believe the way they do because they believe the science supports their view? What would happen if science said something else or they came to believe science said something else? I know they would deny the hypothetical, but it seems their faith is in science on this matter, not God's Word (and hypotheticals may be fine when discussing hermeneutics anyway?...)."



Well, perhaps one of them is correct on what true science really is. Again, we must think critically and seek a consistent definition of true science. Just because different groups disagree on what true science is does not mean that there is no such thing as true science. 



Afterthought said:


> (And it should be noted here that if it sounds like I am focusing on science changing one's understanding of Scripture too much instead of the other way (i.e., it almost always occurs that one has an understanding of the Scriptures that is challenged by science and then the science is accepted or rejected, instead of having an understanding of science first that is challenged by an understanding of Scripture that is accepted or rejected), I would note that temporally this is what usually happens, since one usually has an understanding of Scripture before science says something, since science is always on the move and Scripture is easier to understand; so it usually practically comes down to evaluating whether the science is good or not, rather than a particular understanding of the Scriptures being correct.)



One usually has an understanding of Scripture first if they were raised within the context of a Christian belief system. There are many people who have no idea what the Bible says and have therefore held an understanding of science first. I am sure that when they are brought to faith in Christ, their view of science inevitably changes.



Afterthought said:


> The only ones that use this paradigm whom I know do not fall into this problem are those who (a) Given a contradiction (Bible says X and science says ~X), affirm science is always true (~X is true), which is rationalistic or (b) Given a contradiction, affirm the Bible's statement is always true and science is always false, and re-interpret the science in light of it, which view will probably end up with a speculative science that may theoretically end up destroying our extra-Biblical knowledge if carried out in a particular manner (though there may be place for such a discipline, nevertheless). Whatever problems the two domains view has, the nice thing about it is that it maintains the integrity of both the Scriptures and how they are to be interpreted, and the sciences and how they are to be run. Indeed, I wonder whether any view but the two domains view can properly uphold the integrity of both; I had a passing thought earlier today that those who hold to a young earth because they believe that the science is incorrect (and so their understanding of the Bible is correct) and that true science vindicates them actually end up destroying the integrity of Biblical interpretation, but I don't remember that thought so I cannot elaborate how! And of course, as an argument for it, the two domains view properly recognizes that Scripture and science are operating in two different domains.



Well, I certainly might agree with the two domains view if I understand it correctly. I certainly intend on continuing to study it, but I was hoping that you would elaborate on what exactly YOU mean by 'two domains'. Of course, we still disagree on what necessarily determines something to be a 'contradiction'. I believe there are things that only appear to be contradictions, but that true contradictions between true science and Scripture do not exist. 



Afterthought said:


> I will admit though that the approach Christians have seemed to have had towards science historically has been the view you are advocating, though I can find the two domains view in seed form in Turretin, so I'm sure that view has some historical precedence too.
> 
> But really, the main point is (a) Scripture should be interpreted in its own right, (b) empirical science should be interpreted in its own right, (c) if in doing so they contradict each other, there is no necessary need to modify one's understanding of one or the other, (d) whatever the Scriptures say is absolute reality and whatever science says is limited reality, (e) one shouldn't interpret the Scriptures with science in such a way that it changes what the Scriptures say, which in particular means that one should not present the heliocentric view of Joshua as the teaching of Scripture or what happened in that event but as an extra-Biblical theory showing what "the sun stood still" means within the context of that particular theory. There is also (f) that it can be expected that Scripture and science contradict each other, but this and other subsidiaries are details and not the main point.



I agree that Scripture should be interpreted in its own right. Science should not be interpreted in its own right, but should be interpreted from the point of view of someone who is in humble submission to God. Furthermore, a person also MUST continually ensure that they are not bringing unwarranted presuppositions to the table when they either look at Scripture or look up at God's creation. I honestly do not think that the heliocentric view contradicts Scripture. An apparent contradiction only occurs if you think that the book of Joshua is intended to present to us a scientific treatise on the motion of the solar system. I do not think that is the case at all.


----------



## Afterthought

You may find these previous threads useful in understanding the two domains view I have been speaking of. This thread shows Turretin's view on the matter, and I receive clarification of his view: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/turretin-solves-creation-evolution-debate-72265/ This thread gives further clarification: http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/age-earth-light-years-73449/ This page of this thread has some very brief discussion on this matter: http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/ans...modern-reformation-magazine-62687/index2.html

(Edit: Of course, I'll try to explain on my own later if there is still confusion)


Not related to the above threads, I found this essay interesting from an historical perspective on the matter. However, this essay may warrant a thread of its own for discussing. One of the comments also may lead one to think Turretin was influenced by Descartes to some degree, which would explain the similarity in views on this matter.


----------



## Afterthought

Loopie said:


> I was only asking you because I thought it was important that we each understand the position that the other was taking. I was not trying to be sneaky, or rude, or harsh, but simply trying to understand what exactly you are proposing.


Very well. Apologies if my response sounded as though it were attributing such things to you; such was not my intention.


Briefly, the contradiction is on the level of the claims themselves. If science claims that the earth is 4 or so billion years old and the Bible claims that the earth is 6,000 or so years old, then the two claims conflict with each other. But then, claims are not made in a vacuum but with respect to various domains. When one see that these claims are made with respect to two different domains, then the contradiction disappears. One may call this an "apparent contradiction," but I'm not sure such is helpful terminology since the term is already used by those who do not support this view, so using the term will not alert others to the difference between this view and others; we are often concerned with the level of claim, the data we receive from each, when we speak of contradictions; and "apparent contradiction" may be broad enough to cover conflicting claims that are made within the same domain, which on further scrutiny do not contradict. Sorry I cannot reply further for now.

If my memory serves, it also seems you may have been using "true science" to mean "science that has arrived at truth" rather than "science that is properly done," but I don't have time to re-read the post right now. I meant it in the latter sense, which is why I was able to say that true science is more or less what we have now _in terms of method_.


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> Briefly, the contradiction is on the level of the claims themselves. If science claims that the earth is 4 or so billion years old and the Bible claims that the earth is 6,000 or so years old, then the two claims conflict with each other. But then, claims are not made in a vacuum but with respect to various domains. When one see that these claims are made with respect to two different domains, then the contradiction disappears. One may call this an "apparent contradiction," but I'm not sure such is helpful terminology since the term is already used by those who do not support this view, so using the term will not alert others to the difference between this view and others; we are often concerned with the level of claim, the data we receive from each, when we speak of contradictions; and "apparent contradiction" may be broad enough to cover conflicting claims that are made within the same domain, which on further scrutiny do not contradict. Sorry I cannot reply further for now.
> 
> If my memory serves, it also seems you may have been using "true science" to mean "science that has arrived at truth" rather than "science that is properly done," but I don't have time to re-read the post right now. I meant it in the latter sense, which is why I was able to say that true science is more or less what we have now _in terms of method_.



I would argue that any 'science' which is claiming that the earth is billions of years old has just transitioned from actual science to 'theory'. There are no experiments or repeatable observations that can confirm or deny the age of the earth. That is a far cry, and altogether different category, from science demonstrating that the earth orbits and sun, which is demonstrable even today. That is where the distinction lies.

It is similar to those who argue that the Bible contradicts itself. They use the word 'contradiction' with the assumption that a contradiction actually exists. In truth, it is only an 'apparent contradiction' and becomes easily resolved once a thorough exegesis of the text is done. There are many people who see contradictions where none really exist, and so we must be careful to use proper terminology. 

The difference between true science and false science is indeed the intent and the starting point. Those who start with the assumption that God does not exist and has not spoken, are not going to engage in true science. Those who start with God, and seek to glorify God, are most certainly on the right path towards doing true science. I guess that is how I have understood the difference between the two.


----------



## Afterthought

Afterthought said:


> these ideas (especially those related to Post 42) may make the cosmological and design arguments illegitimate as well as making it illegitimate to posit special creation as a scientific hypothesis in counter to evolution (which would mean we would be obligated from a scientific view to hold to evolution, since whatever its weaknesses, it would be all there is, scientifically).


As an attempted answer to my own questions, they don't make the cosmological and design arguments illegitimate because they are arguments from reason, not empirical science, though they may make use of some facts gathered from empirical science in their arguments. Wilhelmus a Brakel expounds on the manner in which we can know there was a Creation by reason and in the manner we must hold to Creation by faith:

"God did not create the world from an infinite air mass, neither from indivisible elements, from an eternally formless mass of matter, nor from anything else, whatever name one would wish to attribute to it. This is a pagan fabrication derived from the fundamental principle: _only nothing can come out of nothing_. This is true in reference to the finite creature and natural forces, but not as far as the infinite and omnipotent God is concerned. He has brought forth everything out of nothing. The determining factor here is this “nothing,” and not the matter from which things were formed.

The apostle demonstrates this in Heb 11:3, where he states, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Natural reason teaches that by virtue of causal relationships one ultimately must come to God as the original cause of all things. Natural reason, however, cannot understand the “how”; that is, how something can come into existence out of nothing, how God with one word and with one single command has caused everything to come into existence. All this we accept by faith. By faith we also accept the order described by Moses, in which all things were brought forth."

(p. 269-270)

Further, it is true that special creation cannot be presented as a scientific hypothesis, but hypotheses and theories on origins that inevitably take on an explanatory nature (such as an evolutionary explanation of origins) step outside the domain of science into the realm of the absolute (history and purpose), and so special creation can be held as an hypothesis of reason in competition to these other purported explanations that may or may not actually work in doing the job of explaining.

(As an aside, I don't doubt that science has an explanatory role, but its explanatory role must be limited, not related to the absolute, like history and theology are. With relation to itself, science has an explanatory role, but with reference to ultimate or absolute reality, it takes on a descriptive character. Not that this matters all that much, since I seem to recall that holding scientific laws to be descriptive even in relation to itself is an arguable position within the philosophy of science, though I don't know where the debate on that currently lies.)


----------



## Loopie

Afterthought said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> these ideas (especially those related to Post 42) may make the cosmological and design arguments illegitimate as well as making it illegitimate to posit special creation as a scientific hypothesis in counter to evolution (which would mean we would be obligated from a scientific view to hold to evolution, since whatever its weaknesses, it would be all there is, scientifically).
> 
> 
> 
> As an attempted answer to my own questions, they don't make the cosmological and design arguments illegitimate because they are arguments from reason, not empirical science, though they may make use of some facts gathered from empirical science in their arguments. A Brakel expounds on the manner in which we can know there was a Creation by reason and in the manner we must hold to Creation by faith:
> 
> "God did not create the world from an infinite air mass, neither from indivisible elements, from an eternally formless mass of matter, nor from anything else, whatever name one would wish to attribute to it. This is a pagan fabrication derived from the fundamental principle: _only nothing can come out of nothing_. This is true in reference to the finite creature and natural forces, but not as far as the infinite and omnipotent God is concerned. He has brought forth everything out of nothing. The determining factor here is this “nothing,” and not the matter from which things were formed.
> 
> The apostle demonstrates this in Heb 11:3, where he states, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Natural reason teaches that by virtue of causal relationships one ultimately must come to God as the original cause of all things. Natural reason, however, cannot understand the “how”; that is, how something can come into existence out of nothing, how God with one word and with one single command has caused everything to come into existence. All this we accept by faith. By faith we also accept the order described by Moses, in which all things were brought forth."
> 
> (p. 269-270)
> 
> Further, it is true that special creation cannot be presented as a scientific hypothesis, but hypotheses and theories on origins that inevitably take on an explanatory nature (such as an evolutionary explanation of origins) step outside the domain of science into the realm of the absolute (history and purpose), and so special creation can be held as an hypothesis of reason in competition to these other purported explanations that may or may not actually work in doing the job of explaining.
> 
> (As an aside, I don't doubt that science has an explanatory role, but its explanatory role must be limited, not related to the absolute, like history and theology are. With relation to itself, science has an explanatory role, but with reference to ultimate or absolute reality, it takes on a descriptive character. Not that this matters all that much, since holding scientific laws to be descriptive even in relation to itself is a well-established position historically within the philosophy of science, though I don't know where the debate on that currently lies.)
Click to expand...


I completely agree. Theories on origin and creation cannot be scientific, because science has to do with what is currently observable, measurable, and reproducible. Theories on origin and creation are certainly tied to history, philosophy, and of course, theology.


----------

