I would like to make two observations that have helped me in my struggle
with reconciling conflicts I have had.
1. Years ago someone made the following comment, and I found it strangely
useful:
The Bible does not always say what it means,
Nor does it always mean what it says,
But it always means what it means.
I guess that's why God has given us hermeneuticians.
2. Someone said, (perhaps Descartes?, and if anyone can give me the citation
I would be appreciative) that when our understanding of God and our
understanding of truth are in conflict, then either our understanding of God
or our understanding of truth, or both, need to be reexamined.
Because I can often understand things better mathmatically, I pose this in
the form of an equation.
let G represent our understanding of God
and T(1) through T(inf) our understanding of the truths of subjects
1 through inf.
then G = f[T(1) + T(2) + ... T(inf)] where f = a factor.
now our understanding of God is the sum of our understanding of God
from the Bible and from other sources.
let B represent our understanding of God from the Bible
and S represent our understanding of God from other sources
then B + S = f[T(1) + T(2) + ... + T(inf)]
and our understanding of a given science t(z)
would be B + S = f[T(z)/k] (where k is the sum of all other T's.)
However for each of us B and S will vary, and for some B will be very large
and S infinitesimally small. For some B will be not only large, but
invariable and possibly dependent on a fixed interpretation of the Bible,
perhaps even a given translation of the Bible. (I understand that there are
some who feel that the translators of the 1611 KJV were inspired by the Holy
Spirit as they translated, and thus this translation is THE inspired Word of
God.) For these people, changes in T(z) will either not be tolerated, or
require involved explanations. An intolerance for change will characterize
the science of these people.
If anyone feels it worthy of a response, I would appreciate criticism of
these ideas.
Eric