While I agree that not all of the bible can be interpreted as science, I
somehow doubt that anyone can deny that some books of the bible are
distinctly poetic/mythological and others are factual, or even prophetic.
Prophecy requires science to be understood before the event. After the fact
it is not required but still useful. Factual passages and books, like most
of the first five books, require science. Some disagree. Are the numbers of
people within a tribe just poetic? Or are they actual math? Are the items
forbidden to eat just mythology or are they actual eats? I think if a person
with logic looks deep into the first five books they will find that the
author/authors were generally using facts, which they knew at the time. This
of course means that some will not apply today and some may. Its up to us to
figure out which ones.
Anyone wishing to respond, please give a percentage of fact vs. myth within
the first five books. To do any less with a general "Its not science"
comment would be unjust. Everyone says that the other doesn't listen. I'M
LISTENING. Its up to those who disagree to answer the question, DISTINCTLY.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:31 AM
To: Glenn Morton
Cc: Shuan Rose; Robert Schneider; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: A matter of trust?(Or why YEC persists)
Glenn Morton wrote:
As an excersize in creativity and just for fun (not for seriousness),
Shuan prsented the following challenge:>>>Yet God my King is from of old,
working salvation in the midst of the earth. 13Thou didst divide the sea by
thy might; thou didst break the heads of the dragons on the waters. 14Thou
didst crush the heads of Leviathan, thou didst give him as food for the
creatures of the wilderness. 15Thou didst cleave open springs and brooks;
thou didst dry up ever-flowing streams. 16Thine is the day, thine also the
night; thou hast established the luminaries and the sun. 17Thou hast fixed
all the bounds of the earth; thou hast made summer and winter. (Psalms
74:12-17)I have a feeling that there will be few calls for a concordist
interpretation of this passage! <<<Well lets see, god did divide the sea
with continental drift (many times) and he did break the head of the
reptilian dragons of the Cretaceous era by dropping the Chicxulub meteor
onto their heads which of course gave them (their carcasses) as food for the
few survivors. The meteor also 'cleaved open' a big hole allowing
groundwaters to escape in the form of springs. Most of us do believe that
God created the luminaries and the sun as well as summer and winter. Voila!!
a concordistic interpretation!!! :-)
I gave a paper on these "Chaos struggle" passages at the 2000 ASA
meeting. (Ps.89:8-13, Job 26:12-13 & Is.51:9-10 also have to be
considered.) I certainly appreciate the humor of Glenn's concordist
interpretation but of course, joking aside, no one in his/her right mind
would insist that these passages have to interpreted historically,
"concordized" with science &c - which gives the lie to the claim that other
passages dealing with creation _must_ be so interpreted.
The average churchgoer is either quite unaware of these passages
or just skims over them while reading the Bible without realizing how
obviously mythological they are. Giving some attention to them can be one
way of helping people realize the variety of ways in which creation is
presented in scripture. (& to forestall the obvious criticism - these
passages passages should be taken seriously as part of the witness to
revelation. But they ain't history or science.)
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 17:44:47 EDT