Glenn wrote,
<< If the science in the Bible is the science of the day, yet it is
integral to the story relating theological truth, how can we be sure that
there really is a theological truth to extract from the false science. As I
said in my July 5th post we use correct science to discount the theological
implications of YEC. Indeed, you, yourself, have applied this procedure in
discussions with YECs because you have asked me for scientific data to
refute what they are saying. Why do you do this, if they can really be
relating true theology even using their false science? And if they are
relating true theology, why do you stand in the way of getting God's message
across? You can't have it both ways. You can't believe the scientific trash
of the biblical writers gives theological and at the same time claim the
idea that the scientific trash of the YECs gets in the way of good
theology!!!!
>>
If all we had was Gen 1-11, and I could see as I do that it reflects the
science of the day and cannot be harmonized with modern science (when
interpreted in context), I probably would not accept it as a divine
revelation. In other cases where the Bible reflects the science of the day,
e.g. the hare chewing the cud, the theological truth that the hare should not
be eaten under the old covenant rules is of no great importance and is passe
anyway. When Jesus says, the Queen of the South came from "the ends of the
earth" and this agrees with the science of the day that the earth (dry land)
literally ended in the area of Sheba, the associated theological truth that
the queen will condemn the generation of Jesus for not honoring him is not
affected by the geographical error. I think this is how the science of the
day generally works in the Bible: it communicates primarily to the people who
held those scientific beliefs and the theological truth bound to it is not
bound to it all that tightly.
In addition, the theological truths in Gen 1-11 such as God as creator,
ruler, savior, judge and man as sinner called to repent and walk in
righteousness by faith are found in numerous parts of Scripture. One is not
dependent upon Gen 1-11 as literal history for the theology there: the
theology of Gen 1-11 is all over the Bible. Indeed, it is that coherence
along with the acceptance of Gen as canon that leads me to accept the
theology of Gen 1-11 in spite of its accommodation to the science of the
times.
I agree with you to the extent that if objective evidence falsified all of
biblical history, we could not object to the claims of other religions as
readily, and would need at the least to reexamine our own foundations. But,
much of the OT history does stand (in spite of the minimalists), and the NT
(which is much more our foundation than the Old) stands very well. In
addition, our ultimate evidence of the truth of Christianity is the witness
of the Holy Spirit. Quite apart from the failure of Gen 1-11 to be literally
true history, Christians are standing on solid objective and subjective
ground.
The difference between accepting the theology of Gen 1-11 in spite of its bad
science and not accepting the YECs is that we clearly know better now. We
have scientific light that did not exist in OT times; and we are responsible
to live up to that light, to keep the first commandment to love God will all
of our mind.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 02:30:43 EDT